4 ms·
More like "...we call it the simply typed lambda calculus."
by cmeiklejohn 9y ago
More like "...we call it the simply typed lambda calculus."
- bjz_ 9y agoIt's a bit like all the folks who recoil in horror when you say 'types' and all they can think of is Java.
- cm2187 9y agoI actually don’t think SOAP was that bad. You didn’t want to deal with the API by hand but it was easy to automate the consumption of the API, visual studio was taking care of all of the plumbing for instance and you would consume an API in just a few clicks.
- bjz_ 9y agoSounds pretty nice actually. I'm guessing there could be pain over time though when it came to maintaining it. Easy to add, hard to remove or change?
- cm2187 9y agoDepends what you mean by change. If the API changes, all you had to do is to right click on the reference of the API in visual studio and select update. It would fetch the latest WSDL and recreate the code to consume the API. So painless as long as the API is backward compatible. And on the server side, the WSDL was automatically generated from your code if you used .net, so every time you would update the API the WSDL was up to date. All that created a lot of plumbing and chatty XML traffic behind the scene, so the underlying exchange isn't as neat as a REST API, but as long as you didn't have to deal with it directly it didn't really matter.
- bjz_ 9y agoAh, thanks for the extra info. I'm too young to have dealt with this stuff myself, so first-hand experience is always really interesting! What I have had to deal with is schemaless JSON HTTP APIs - definitely know what a pain that is! GraphQL is a whole bunch nicer from what I hear (but will be interesting to see what folks say in several years time).