Bot Thoughts

[MyndFyre]

A SOAP packet that does not represent an error has two XML tags surrounding the pure user-defined XML. What about that is ugly or verbose?

Dude, even Wikipedia knows how verbose it is, and I totally didn't write that.

Example:
http://www.clan-aoa.org/aoamod4_login.asmx?op=Login

Two things make this yucky to work with:
1.) Namespacing XML is otherworldly. 
2.) Why bother with an envelope, which really provides no value, when your XML can be RESTful, such as:

Code: [Select]

<Login>
  <Username>string</Username>
  <Password>string</Password>
</Login>


[Camel]

1.) Namespacing XML is otherworldly.

I disagree. When your language is weakly typed, you're living in the past.

2.) Why bother with an envelope, which really provides no value, when your XML can be RESTful, such as:

Code: [Select]

<Login>
  <Username>string</Username>
  <Password>string</Password>
</Login>


The SOAP envelope is the single ancestor; it takes the place of your above "login" element. XML, strictly speaking, requires a single ancestor, so the argument is moot.

The purpose of the SOAP:body tag is to distinguish successful operation result message types from faults. I don't see how you can possibly argue that there's no value to it, when it's pretty clear what the value is just by looking at any example.

[Skywing]

If you use a TLVs (a-la RADIUS), binary protocols easily become as extendible as text-based protocols in terms of compatibility.

[Camel]

Someone published a spec for a "binary XML" using TLVs.

[MyndFyre]

iago, this made me think of you

[iago]

I read that this morning.. but why, exactly? Is every use of XML as a Web service a wrong use?

[MyndFyre]

No.   But sometimes, yes. 

[Camel]

I lol'd

[Blaze]

Haha, that's awesome.