4 ms·
While this has some benefits, it seems like a slippery slope leading back to SOAP.
by hoov 14y ago
While this has some benefits, it seems like a slippery slope leading back to SOAP.
- St-Clock 14y agoExactly. But to be precise, REST would be the equivalent of SOAP and the format described in this post would be equivalent to WSDL [1]. And then, we'll need a central location to store all of these API descriptors and UDDI [2] will be back with a vengeance. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Description_Discovery_and_Integration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Description_Discovery...
- itsnotvalid 14y agoWhen I see this post, the first thing to pop up is SOAP as well. Just that SOAP is not human-readable. Then I suddenly remembered that it wasn't SOAP itself that include the schema but the SOAP providers would generate WSDL alongside a SOAP endpoint.
- onlyup 14y agoFrom someone who is unexperienced in soap, what is the problem with it?
- toast0 14y agoSOAP is an abstraction that is fundamentally unhelpful (at least in my opinion). Without SOAP, to call a webservice, as a developer, I need to read the documentation for the webservice to understand what data needs to go into what places. With SOAP, as a developer, I need to read the documentation for the webservice to understand what data needs to go into what places; but the documentation is much harder to read, and complex types are usually much harder to use (there's a tendency to model things as lots of complex xml, which are often hard to construct, instead of just a specified transform to a string)