3 ms·
> I'll agree that Microsoft, IBM and Oracle (Tibco, etc) would prefer that you were passing SOAP/XML over enterprise busses They better say bye to this idea...
by mqsiuser 12y ago
> I'll agree that Microsoft, IBM and Oracle (Tibco, etc) would prefer that you were passing SOAP/XML over enterprise busses
They better say bye to this idea... it's hard to see why curly braces are good and angle brackets are evil... they get used differently.
> Enterprise (Service) Bus
Buzz word, snake oil
There is no problem, there never was a problem: Build on existing (de-facto) standards and just don't reinvent the world (with WS-*). And do not use the beginning of the payload (like SOAP does). The solution was there already and the solution is HTTP and the 2048 characters of the URL (to encode a function call) and yes a machine readable data format, but NOT XML and yes, JSON is likely/probably good enought.
You usually pay the bill for what you are doing
Open Source is free (as in freedom) but also free of charge :)
- AdrianRossouw 12y ago> yes a machine readable data format, but NOT XML and yes, JSON is likely/probably good enough I thought so too, until I realized json is terrible for binary. on it's own it can't reproduce the full capabilities of REST ie: http multi-part uploads. You need a performant streamable binary format too, and my vote for that is protobuf.