4 ms·

Keep in mind that JAX-WS with JAX-B beats other rival libraries in other languages. If your requirement is to be a client that consumes SOAP web service given w

Keep in mind that JAX-WS with JAX-B beats other rival libraries in other languages. If your requirement is to be a client that consumes SOAP web service given wsdl, I'd take Java any given day. The wsimport and wsdl tool that JDK provides beat any libraries. Also, JAX-B annotation can serialize and deserialize to JSON given the right provider. That's JSON, XML with POJO with the price of one. Good example of Java ecosystem: build on top of existing one / backward compatible / play nice with others.

nickbauman 12y ago
False. If you use a language that's homoiconic (any Lisp), you don't need to serialize anything. The source code of the language is already in its serialzed form. You can't beat the speed of not having to do something in the first place. As an aside, no sane person would write a SOAP webservice today.
- therealidiot 12y ago
  This may be true but there are many existing SOAP webservices out there still, and the parent mentioned consuming a SOAP API.
- jtheory 12y ago
  I wrote a SOAP webservice -- not because I'm insane, but because our business relies on data sent to us. We could certainly tell everyone that they'll need to write code to send us the data we need to be of use to them. Or we could look at the installed systems that hold their data, and see what built-in support those systems have for external integrations. And so: we quickly added a simple SOAP endpoint. About serializing -- I'm potentially missing your point, but "The source code of the language is already in its serialzed form" doesn't seem to make sense. Who serializes source code? Values in data structures need to be transmitted, normally (sometimes in the form of source code -- e.g., JSON) -- homoiconic languages are interesting for other reasons, but not serialization.
  - nickbauman 12y ago
    So you're consuming data of an existing (legacy) SOAP service? Or complying with exisiting clients of a (legacy) SOAP service? That's not the same as writing a new SOAP service. If the language you're using is already expressed in a form that does not need serialization, then you don't have to serialize it. This is the very essence of languages that are homoiconic. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with that before down-voting what I have to say about it.
    - coldtea 12y ago
      >If the language you're using is already expressed in a form that does not need serialization, then you don't have to serialize it. Yeah. If only that language and "not needing serialization" code format didn't have 200 other problems, like NONE of the major services accepting it, lack of tooling, a sorry state of an ecosystem, difficulty of finding programmers and/or jobs, etc...
      - jerven 12y ago
        And the simple fact that taking code provided by a remote service and just using it as is just handing the keys of your server over. LISP homoicity is nice but its a bad, bad idea to accept LISP code over the network from any client. Documented dataformats that are not executable are enough of a security risk that sending an executable around is not a great idea. (Should have been attached to grandparent, as I agree with parent)
        nickbauman 12y ago
        You really don't get it do you. An s-expression doesn't have to be evaled to be read. I just keep getting downvoted here. It's like offering a machine gun to a caveman and getting clubbed to death with it.
        coldtea 12y ago
        >An s-expression doesn't have to be evaled to be read. Yeah, so you get a serialization format that's the same as your code. Big deal. And you have to live with your code having the same look as a serialization format. Even McCarthy wanted to give Lisp a proper syntax. >It's like offering a machine gun to a caveman and getting clubbed to death with it. More like it's coming to Paul Graham's house to tell him all about this new wonderful Lisp thing thing you've discovered. I mean, this is HN, what makes you think those that answered you don't already know and/or use Lisp and its homoiconicity properties? Being used as a serialization format is perhaps the least interesting and useful property of Lisp code.
- jerluc 12y ago
  You've clearly never tried to implement a REST API using any flavor of Lisp before. Guess what: most clients of web services understand JSON and XML, not S-expressions.
- terryf 12y ago
  SOAP certainly sucks, but regarding your comment on using lisp as the transfer protocol is a bad idea. Data transfer protocols must be verifiable - you should basically be able to write a piece of code that parses the data input and verifies that it will not do something bad if deserialized. Given that as far as I know, Lisp is turing-complete, this task is impossible. Therefore, Lisp, while being a nice programming language, is a very bad wire protocol.
  - davexunit 12y ago
    Reading an sexp isn't the same as evaling it. Just read it and manipulate the resulting tree. Lisps have templating, marshalling, and unmarshalling built-in.

nickbauman 12y ago

False. If you use a language that's homoiconic (any Lisp), you don't need to serialize anything. The source code of the language is already in its serialzed form. You can't beat the speed of not having to do something in the first place. As an aside, no sane person would write a SOAP webservice today.

therealidiot 12y ago
This may be true but there are many existing SOAP webservices out there still, and the parent mentioned consuming a SOAP API.
jtheory 12y ago
I wrote a SOAP webservice -- not because I'm insane, but because our business relies on data sent to us. We could certainly tell everyone that they'll need to write code to send us the data we need to be of use to them. Or we could look at the installed systems that hold their data, and see what built-in support those systems have for external integrations. And so: we quickly added a simple SOAP endpoint. About serializing -- I'm potentially missing your point, but "The source code of the language is already in its serialzed form" doesn't seem to make sense. Who serializes source code? Values in data structures need to be transmitted, normally (sometimes in the form of source code -- e.g., JSON) -- homoiconic languages are interesting for other reasons, but not serialization.
- nickbauman 12y ago
  So you're consuming data of an existing (legacy) SOAP service? Or complying with exisiting clients of a (legacy) SOAP service? That's not the same as writing a new SOAP service. If the language you're using is already expressed in a form that does not need serialization, then you don't have to serialize it. This is the very essence of languages that are homoiconic. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with that before down-voting what I have to say about it.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >If the language you're using is already expressed in a form that does not need serialization, then you don't have to serialize it. Yeah. If only that language and "not needing serialization" code format didn't have 200 other problems, like NONE of the major services accepting it, lack of tooling, a sorry state of an ecosystem, difficulty of finding programmers and/or jobs, etc...
    - jerven 12y ago
      And the simple fact that taking code provided by a remote service and just using it as is just handing the keys of your server over. LISP homoicity is nice but its a bad, bad idea to accept LISP code over the network from any client. Documented dataformats that are not executable are enough of a security risk that sending an executable around is not a great idea. (Should have been attached to grandparent, as I agree with parent)
      - nickbauman 12y ago
        You really don't get it do you. An s-expression doesn't have to be evaled to be read. I just keep getting downvoted here. It's like offering a machine gun to a caveman and getting clubbed to death with it.
        coldtea 12y ago
        >An s-expression doesn't have to be evaled to be read. Yeah, so you get a serialization format that's the same as your code. Big deal. And you have to live with your code having the same look as a serialization format. Even McCarthy wanted to give Lisp a proper syntax. >It's like offering a machine gun to a caveman and getting clubbed to death with it. More like it's coming to Paul Graham's house to tell him all about this new wonderful Lisp thing thing you've discovered. I mean, this is HN, what makes you think those that answered you don't already know and/or use Lisp and its homoiconicity properties? Being used as a serialization format is perhaps the least interesting and useful property of Lisp code.
jerluc 12y ago
You've clearly never tried to implement a REST API using any flavor of Lisp before. Guess what: most clients of web services understand JSON and XML, not S-expressions.
terryf 12y ago
SOAP certainly sucks, but regarding your comment on using lisp as the transfer protocol is a bad idea. Data transfer protocols must be verifiable - you should basically be able to write a piece of code that parses the data input and verifies that it will not do something bad if deserialized. Given that as far as I know, Lisp is turing-complete, this task is impossible. Therefore, Lisp, while being a nice programming language, is a very bad wire protocol.
- davexunit 12y ago
  Reading an sexp isn't the same as evaling it. Just read it and manipulate the resulting tree. Lisps have templating, marshalling, and unmarshalling built-in.