On 03/06/2013 09:15 PM, Arne Vajh?j wrote:
On 3/3/2013 10:11 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
On 03/03/2013 10:57 PM, David Lamb wrote:
On 03/03/2013 9:47 PM, Arne Vajh?j wrote:
On 3/2/2013 1:11 AM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
SOAP is one of the worst widely adopted protocols ever. It makes
LDAP
seem sensible. Just say "no."
It works.
That doesn't negate what Kevin said; it could "work", as in do useful
stuff, while still being the worst widely adopted protocol. I don't
know
enough about SOAP to have a personal opinion, though.
As a model of RPC it makes me want to re-embrace CORBA. It's badly
designed.
Having said that, if you work with simple subsets it's understandable,
robust, and very widely supported. The use of XML is very defensible,
IMO.
I've seen plenty of much more terrible protocols. SOAP doesn't even come
close to some of the Cthulhian mind-blasting horrors I've dealt with.
If one expose a SOAP/HTTP service implemented in language X and
generate a client stub for language Y from the WSDL, then there
is a pretty good chance that it will just work.
That's true. You can also enhance your chances of success by:
1) working with SoapUI to visualize the XML for relevant
request-response pairs in your scenario. This is particularly helpful
when working with WS-Security;
2) turn on request-response logging for your SOAP implementation, so you
can see the XML that is generated by your client code + client stubs,
plus the service response. Usually pretty simple, in CXF it is
programmatically 2 lines of code.
You can save a lot of wasted time by verifying the actual XML in play.