4 ms·

It's like ice-cream, some people like chocolate, others like vanilla...others (insert your flavor). I use a lot of httpie [1] and jq [2] - sometimes a GUI is

It's like ice-cream, some people like chocolate, others like vanilla...others (insert your flavor). I use a lot of httpie [1] and jq [2] - sometimes a GUI is nice to show other humans who might... mmhh... not like the CLI that much.. things in a more "eye pleasing way". As usual with these tools YMMV. [1] https://httpie.org/ https://httpie.org/ [2] https://stedolan.github.io/jq/ https://stedolan.github.io/jq/

drinchev 9y ago
I also use cd / mv / cp / rm, but sometimes Finder (macOS) / Explorer (win) / Dolphin (kde) works better. Not for other humans, for me as well. It has all those shiny colors, icons, columns, drag & drop, that makes it easier and faster, when you have more complicated task. I guess it all depends, but GUI in general is a step forward.
- kachnuv_ocasek 9y ago
  In my experience, the converse is true. Finder/Explorer makes only already easy tasks like cd/mv/cp/rm easier, but terminal is much better for more complicated operations, such as mass renaming, data file preprocessing, etc.
oneplane 9y ago
While I tend to agree with that, I would love to have a Postman/Insomia style client for SOAP. I still do some work that requires talking to (legacy-ish) enterprise applications that only do SOAP :-( On the CLI, that's just a bunch of unusable XML.
- qw 9y ago
  I have good experiences with the free version of SoapUI. It is branded as a test automation tool, but can also work well as a client. Just import your WSDL and it will generate requests for you. https://www.soapui.org https://www.soapui.org
  - rishabhparikh 9y ago
    +1 for SoapUI. Used it for ~3 months during an internship a while back and didn't have any complaints.
- giobox 9y ago
  SoapUI has provided this since the mid 2000s. Has a pretty dated UI now but still does the job for those legacy SOAP tasks.
- themoat 9y ago
  Boomerang isn't so bad for SOAP. I just use the free extension at work. It has worked more consistently for me than Soap UI did.
SCdF 9y ago
I use both. Sometimes it's more convenient to use command line, and sometimes (especially with more complicated queries that you want to modify and fiddle with a lot) a GUI is more convenient.
themoat 9y ago
I love httpie for smaller requests, but there's still situations where I have to reach for a GUI. Adding 4 headers and 9 fields in a JSON request body is not as fun in httpie if you find yourself having to change fields and run the request again
Osiris 9y ago
I also like using mitmproxy combined with proxychains4 for monitoring outgoing requests of apps I'm building, especially when using a third-party library to use a service (like Azure services). It's also good for seeing what any application is doing. [1] https://mitmproxy.org/ https://mitmproxy.org/ [2] https://github.com/rofl0r/proxychains-ng https://github.com/rofl0r/proxychains-ng
k12ntp 9y ago
Jetbrains just released a new in-editor REST client in Intellij 2017.3: https://blog.jetbrains.com/phpstorm/2017/09/editor-based-rest-client https://blog.jetbrains.com/phpstorm/2017/09/editor-based-res... I think it combines the best of both worlds.

drinchev 9y ago

I also use cd / mv / cp / rm, but sometimes Finder (macOS) / Explorer (win) / Dolphin (kde) works better. Not for other humans, for me as well. It has all those shiny colors, icons, columns, drag & drop, that makes it easier and faster, when you have more complicated task. I guess it all depends, but GUI in general is a step forward.

kachnuv_ocasek 9y ago
In my experience, the converse is true. Finder/Explorer makes only already easy tasks like cd/mv/cp/rm easier, but terminal is much better for more complicated operations, such as mass renaming, data file preprocessing, etc.

oneplane 9y ago

While I tend to agree with that, I would love to have a Postman/Insomia style client for SOAP. I still do some work that requires talking to (legacy-ish) enterprise applications that only do SOAP :-( On the CLI, that's just a bunch of unusable XML.

qw 9y ago
I have good experiences with the free version of SoapUI. It is branded as a test automation tool, but can also work well as a client. Just import your WSDL and it will generate requests for you. https://www.soapui.org https://www.soapui.org
- rishabhparikh 9y ago
  +1 for SoapUI. Used it for ~3 months during an internship a while back and didn't have any complaints.
giobox 9y ago
SoapUI has provided this since the mid 2000s. Has a pretty dated UI now but still does the job for those legacy SOAP tasks.
themoat 9y ago
Boomerang isn't so bad for SOAP. I just use the free extension at work. It has worked more consistently for me than Soap UI did.

SCdF 9y ago

I use both. Sometimes it's more convenient to use command line, and sometimes (especially with more complicated queries that you want to modify and fiddle with a lot) a GUI is more convenient.

themoat 9y ago

I love httpie for smaller requests, but there's still situations where I have to reach for a GUI. Adding 4 headers and 9 fields in a JSON request body is not as fun in httpie if you find yourself having to change fields and run the request again

Osiris 9y ago

I also like using mitmproxy combined with proxychains4 for monitoring outgoing requests of apps I'm building, especially when using a third-party library to use a service (like Azure services). It's also good for seeing what any application is doing. [1] https://mitmproxy.org/ https://mitmproxy.org/ [2] https://github.com/rofl0r/proxychains-ng https://github.com/rofl0r/proxychains-ng

k12ntp 9y ago

Jetbrains just released a new in-editor REST client in Intellij 2017.3: https://blog.jetbrains.com/phpstorm/2017/09/editor-based-rest-client https://blog.jetbrains.com/phpstorm/2017/09/editor-based-res... I think it combines the best of both worlds.