6 ms·

We've come full circle back to XML SOAP. We should consider restricting the registration of .org domains to actual non-profit organizations, and restricting th

We've come full circle back to XML SOAP. We should consider restricting the registration of .org domains to actual non-profit organizations, and restricting the use of words like "schema" and "standard" to things that have been fully certified as such by internationally accredited engineering bodies. This doesn't add anything on-top of the tools we've had 40 years ago. We're stuck with this everywhere now, all thanks to pure marketing.

hyperpallium2 5y ago
back to CORBA
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
  > CORBA Get off my lawn!
- johnnycerberus 5y ago
  > CORBA "Well, it's high noon somewhere in the world."
- DonHopkins 5y ago
  The World's Second Fully Modular Software Disaster! It's just riddled with features.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    what was the first fully modular software disaster?
    - DonHopkins 5y ago
      Glad you asked! ;) https://donhopkins.medium.com/the-x-windows-disaster-128d398ebd47 https://donhopkins.medium.com/the-x-windows-disaster-128d398... [...] X-Windows is the Iran-Contra of graphical user interfaces: a tragedy of political compromises, entangled alliances, marketing hype, and just plain greed. X-Windows is to memory as Ronald Reagan was to money. Years of “Voodoo Ergonomics” have resulted in an unprecedented memory deficit of gargantuan proportions. Divisive dependencies, distributed deadlocks, and partisan protocols have tightened gridlocks, aggravated race conditions, and promulgated double standards. [...] X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster >X-Windows started out as one man’s project in an office on the fifth floor of MIT’s Laboratory for Computer Science. A wizardly hacker, who was familiar with W, a window system written at Stanford University as part of the V project, decided to write a distributed graphical display server. The idea was to allow a program, called a client, to run on one computer and allow it to display on another computer that was running a special program called a window server. The two computers might be VAXes or Suns, or one of each, as long as the computers were networked together and each implemented the X protocol. [...] X-Windows: …A mistake carried out to perfection. X-Windows: …Dissatisfaction guaranteed. X-Windows: …Don’t get frustrated without it. X-Windows: …Even your dog won’t like it. X-Windows: …Flaky and built to stay that way. X-Windows: …Complex non-solutions to simple non-problems. X-Windows: …Flawed beyond belief. X-Windows: …Form follows malfunction. X-Windows: …Garbage at your fingertips. X-Windows: …Ignorance is our most important resource. X-Windows: …It could be worse, but it’ll take time. X-Windows: …It could happen to you. X-Windows: …Japan’s secret weapon. X-Windows: …Let it get in your way. X-Windows: …Live the nightmare. X-Windows: …More than enough rope. X-Windows: …Never had it, never will. X-Windows: …No hardware is safe. X-Windows: …Power tools for power fools. X-Windows: …Putting new limits on productivity. X-Windows: …Simplicity made complex. X-Windows: …The cutting edge of obsolescence. X-Windows: …The art of incompetence. X-Windows: …The defacto substandard. X-Windows: …The first fully modular software disaster. X-Windows: …The joke that kills. X-Windows: …The problem for your problem. X-Windows: …There’s got to be a better way. X-Windows: …Warn your friends about it. X-Windows: …You’d better sit down. X-Windows: …You’ll envy the dead.
paulddraper 5y ago
Do you mean XSD? XSD = JSONSchema WSDL = OpenAPI SOAP = there really isn't a direct analog maybe ""REST"" --- In any case, try creating a SOAP service and WSDL. It's literally so complex that most tutorials have to rely on an IDE to do it. Humans are simply not equal to the task. Yes, the purpose is similar, but only those who have never used them would think they're the same.
- k__ 5y ago
  I had to use SOAP once... for one API endpoint. I'd say it was the worst dev experience of my whole career, and I fought with objective-c and app stores.
  - m_st 5y ago
    Using SOAP APIs daily since over 15 years with .NET Framework development. Simple and easy to write and then easy to consume through Visual Studio generated code. Tried some ObjC development early on the iPhone. Gave up quickly. I agree that SOAP looks like a mess. But given the right tools, it honestly just works. Never had a single issue with these APIs apart being stuck in .NET Framework land.
    - paulddraper 5y ago
      And that's the issue. SOAP isn't some nice standardized language-agnostic API layer. SOAP is .NET/Visual Studio RPC. (Not technically, but in practice, due to its complexity.) And hey, great for you. But a lot of people want APIs to be broadly compatible.
      - xienze 5y ago
        > SOAP isn't some nice standardized language-agnostic API layer. What? Of course it is (well, it's a messaging protocol). Where on earth did you get the idea that it's some Microsoft-only proprietary technology?
        5y ago
tylercrompton 5y ago
> We should consider restricting the registration of .org domains to actual non-profit organizations Too late for that > We should consider […] restricting the use of words like "schema" and "standard" to things that have been fully certified as such by internationally accredited engineering bodies. Too late for that and unenforceable
dgb23 5y ago
JSON syntax is more familiar for people who have not been exposed to XML for long. Parsing and walking a JSON structure is much easier and less ambiguous. It's often very clear how to represent/deserialize/serialize JSON (as-is). The benefits of using schema are clear, you can add validation and semantics to parse (JSON) into a richer and more consistent data structure. JSON-schema is in large parts a well designed and clear language that is meant to be read and written by humans. Compare that to DTD, XML schema. I think in terms of raw functionality, there are very strong parallels. And even though I'm not an XML hater, I find JSON simply more pleasant to work with. The only fundamental advantage that I would give XML over JSON is the fact that you can encode meta data in XML in a more idiomatic, standard way via attributes. But we all know that is not how XML is being used. If the ecosystem around XML wasn't abusing attributes to encode core/primary data, then there would be a stronger argument for the language IMO.
- da_chicken 5y ago
  > The only fundamental advantage that I would give XML over JSON is the fact that you can encode meta data in XML in a more idiomatic, standard way via attributes. But we all know that is not how XML is being used. If the ecosystem around XML wasn't abusing attributes to encode core/primary data, then there would be a stronger argument for the language IMO. Attributes are absolutely one of the reasons for XML's failure. They seem so innocuous, until you encounter a schema where the developer created: <Entity ID="12345" Type="Person"> <Property Name="FirstName" Value="Harry" Type="String" /> <Property Name="LastName" Value="Potter" Type="String" /> <Property Name="DateOfBirth" Value="1/1/1980" Type="DateTime" /> </Entity> And you just want to hunt those people down and slap them. Nevermind if you've ever encountered XML with mixed namespaces. Then again, reading the article the bit at the end is exactly the same sort of nastiness.
  - dgb23 5y ago
    That's a very illustrative example. It completely and utterly destroys the benefit of having attributes and makes the structure less clear in context of the XML ecosystem. I imagine if there was discipline around attributes being only used for meta-data and maybe explicit (de-normalized) references (which is arguably meta data, happy to discuss), then XML would be semantically richer by default. However like this we are left guessing the semantics if we encounter some XML. Somewhat in contrast, HTML is generally, but not consistently, better at making this distinction, which enables clearer semantics around accessibility, HATEOAS and so on. Ironically we are kicking that value proposition into the can when driving web application rendering with JSON (like popular SPA frameworks do), so we have to re-invent meta data and communicate that with JSON-schema.

hyperpallium2 5y ago

back to CORBA

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
> CORBA Get off my lawn!
johnnycerberus 5y ago
> CORBA "Well, it's high noon somewhere in the world."
DonHopkins 5y ago
The World's Second Fully Modular Software Disaster! It's just riddled with features.
- dnautics 5y ago
  what was the first fully modular software disaster?
  - DonHopkins 5y ago
    Glad you asked! ;) https://donhopkins.medium.com/the-x-windows-disaster-128d398ebd47 https://donhopkins.medium.com/the-x-windows-disaster-128d398... [...] X-Windows is the Iran-Contra of graphical user interfaces: a tragedy of political compromises, entangled alliances, marketing hype, and just plain greed. X-Windows is to memory as Ronald Reagan was to money. Years of “Voodoo Ergonomics” have resulted in an unprecedented memory deficit of gargantuan proportions. Divisive dependencies, distributed deadlocks, and partisan protocols have tightened gridlocks, aggravated race conditions, and promulgated double standards. [...] X: The First Fully Modular Software Disaster >X-Windows started out as one man’s project in an office on the fifth floor of MIT’s Laboratory for Computer Science. A wizardly hacker, who was familiar with W, a window system written at Stanford University as part of the V project, decided to write a distributed graphical display server. The idea was to allow a program, called a client, to run on one computer and allow it to display on another computer that was running a special program called a window server. The two computers might be VAXes or Suns, or one of each, as long as the computers were networked together and each implemented the X protocol. [...] X-Windows: …A mistake carried out to perfection. X-Windows: …Dissatisfaction guaranteed. X-Windows: …Don’t get frustrated without it. X-Windows: …Even your dog won’t like it. X-Windows: …Flaky and built to stay that way. X-Windows: …Complex non-solutions to simple non-problems. X-Windows: …Flawed beyond belief. X-Windows: …Form follows malfunction. X-Windows: …Garbage at your fingertips. X-Windows: …Ignorance is our most important resource. X-Windows: …It could be worse, but it’ll take time. X-Windows: …It could happen to you. X-Windows: …Japan’s secret weapon. X-Windows: …Let it get in your way. X-Windows: …Live the nightmare. X-Windows: …More than enough rope. X-Windows: …Never had it, never will. X-Windows: …No hardware is safe. X-Windows: …Power tools for power fools. X-Windows: …Putting new limits on productivity. X-Windows: …Simplicity made complex. X-Windows: …The cutting edge of obsolescence. X-Windows: …The art of incompetence. X-Windows: …The defacto substandard. X-Windows: …The first fully modular software disaster. X-Windows: …The joke that kills. X-Windows: …The problem for your problem. X-Windows: …There’s got to be a better way. X-Windows: …Warn your friends about it. X-Windows: …You’d better sit down. X-Windows: …You’ll envy the dead.

paulddraper 5y ago

Do you mean XSD? XSD = JSONSchema WSDL = OpenAPI SOAP = there really isn't a direct analog maybe ""REST"" --- In any case, try creating a SOAP service and WSDL. It's literally so complex that most tutorials have to rely on an IDE to do it. Humans are simply not equal to the task. Yes, the purpose is similar, but only those who have never used them would think they're the same.

k__ 5y ago
I had to use SOAP once... for one API endpoint. I'd say it was the worst dev experience of my whole career, and I fought with objective-c and app stores.
- m_st 5y ago
  Using SOAP APIs daily since over 15 years with .NET Framework development. Simple and easy to write and then easy to consume through Visual Studio generated code. Tried some ObjC development early on the iPhone. Gave up quickly. I agree that SOAP looks like a mess. But given the right tools, it honestly just works. Never had a single issue with these APIs apart being stuck in .NET Framework land.
  - paulddraper 5y ago
    And that's the issue. SOAP isn't some nice standardized language-agnostic API layer. SOAP is .NET/Visual Studio RPC. (Not technically, but in practice, due to its complexity.) And hey, great for you. But a lot of people want APIs to be broadly compatible.
    - xienze 5y ago
      > SOAP isn't some nice standardized language-agnostic API layer. What? Of course it is (well, it's a messaging protocol). Where on earth did you get the idea that it's some Microsoft-only proprietary technology?
      - 5y ago

tylercrompton 5y ago

> We should consider restricting the registration of .org domains to actual non-profit organizations Too late for that > We should consider […] restricting the use of words like "schema" and "standard" to things that have been fully certified as such by internationally accredited engineering bodies. Too late for that and unenforceable

dgb23 5y ago

JSON syntax is more familiar for people who have not been exposed to XML for long. Parsing and walking a JSON structure is much easier and less ambiguous. It's often very clear how to represent/deserialize/serialize JSON (as-is). The benefits of using schema are clear, you can add validation and semantics to parse (JSON) into a richer and more consistent data structure. JSON-schema is in large parts a well designed and clear language that is meant to be read and written by humans. Compare that to DTD, XML schema. I think in terms of raw functionality, there are very strong parallels. And even though I'm not an XML hater, I find JSON simply more pleasant to work with. The only fundamental advantage that I would give XML over JSON is the fact that you can encode meta data in XML in a more idiomatic, standard way via attributes. But we all know that is not how XML is being used. If the ecosystem around XML wasn't abusing attributes to encode core/primary data, then there would be a stronger argument for the language IMO.

da_chicken 5y ago
> The only fundamental advantage that I would give XML over JSON is the fact that you can encode meta data in XML in a more idiomatic, standard way via attributes. But we all know that is not how XML is being used. If the ecosystem around XML wasn't abusing attributes to encode core/primary data, then there would be a stronger argument for the language IMO. Attributes are absolutely one of the reasons for XML's failure. They seem so innocuous, until you encounter a schema where the developer created: <Entity ID="12345" Type="Person"> <Property Name="FirstName" Value="Harry" Type="String" /> <Property Name="LastName" Value="Potter" Type="String" /> <Property Name="DateOfBirth" Value="1/1/1980" Type="DateTime" /> </Entity> And you just want to hunt those people down and slap them. Nevermind if you've ever encountered XML with mixed namespaces. Then again, reading the article the bit at the end is exactly the same sort of nastiness.
- dgb23 5y ago
  That's a very illustrative example. It completely and utterly destroys the benefit of having attributes and makes the structure less clear in context of the XML ecosystem. I imagine if there was discipline around attributes being only used for meta-data and maybe explicit (de-normalized) references (which is arguably meta data, happy to discuss), then XML would be semantically richer by default. However like this we are left guessing the semantics if we encounter some XML. Somewhat in contrast, HTML is generally, but not consistently, better at making this distinction, which enables clearer semantics around accessibility, HATEOAS and so on. Ironically we are kicking that value proposition into the can when driving web application rendering with JSON (like popular SPA frameworks do), so we have to re-invent meta data and communicate that with JSON-schema.