Think the problem isn't so much SOAP::Lite but rather that SOAP itself is a joke - way too complex - designed by committee, supporting use cases that will only ever exist for 0.0001% of it's users.SOAP is an RPC-esq way of doing message passing in a language agnostic way. The intention, I believe, is to cover all bases. It covers message passing, attachments, object description so to speak and a few other nifty things. It's the protocol of which I speak, not the implementation. Some languages have botched libraries. Just like some car makers can't make a decent vehicle to save their life. (Not entirely true :) Also, SOAP 1.0 had its issues, 1.1 solved a few and they are still working on it. The technology is still quite young, especially in comparison to HTTP, as an application level protocol. It covers a lot of bases on purpose so one does not resort to stupid hacks. Any good architecture will allow for enough flexibility so one can work, the tools to facilitate that, but not enough to hang yourself by.
And it's a protocol on top of a protocol (HTTP normally) - that already makes for a debugging / testing disaster.Wrong. It's a format protcol, so to speak. It's a method of formatting a messgae call, or a function call which is a fancier message call. It's like pairing the POP protocol to the mbox format. You CAN use the maildir format w/ pop. Frequently, people don't. Which is annoying. Quite.
Anyway, architects do like it in respect to working over long relationship distances: between departments that do not work closely or between companies. In the end, it is nice because it is a common protocol with tools written around it that save a lot of time. I don't have to worry about the underlying protocol, so long as my language can handle it. HTTP is the default since it's by far the simplest for synchronous message passing. It can be communicated by SMTP, FTP and SCP asynchonously.
Look at it like this. REST is simple. You need to usually develop your own library to access a REST service, but the REST service is fairly well documented if it is in any way popular. I'd argue PM's XML format to be like that, once you find the docs. :) Anyway, you have to relearn how someone implements rest. Speaking of which, you argue that SOAP is done over HTTP by default. What do you think REST services tend to be written over? :)
SOAP is simple for those who know SOAP. People who know SOAP know what NOT to do, and what TO do to make working easy. People, including myself, have the tools to takea WSDL (Soap descriptor) file and turn it into a stub in minutes, w/ far less reading to do and less code to write. It's the ability for a person to go from one SOAP shoppe to another, or for one SOAP user to use many shoppes at once, w/o relearning SOAP, is its power.
In reply to Re^2: start over with SOAP in Perl?
by exussum0
in thread start over with SOAP in Perl?
by McMahon
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |