On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Francis Fish <[email protected]>wrote:
> Now on a proper keyboard instead of an iPhone in a bar! > > The thing that *really* gets me is when people use SOAP to throw XML > strings around, instead of, say, a get over HTTPS with simple > authentication. Seems to be mostly folk that do .Net. Drives me nuts because > it's such a waste of resources and time. (encoding the encoding of something > encoded and then reversing it when it gets back - argh!). Plus you need to > be given the schema of the document as well as the WSDL, two things to get > wrong and have to test instead of one. Technically I think RPC encoded avoids the need to return the schema as well .... but yes I totally agree, REST FTW! > > > I like SOAP when you're sending complex objects that you can populate and > interrogate because it feels simple to do, but it's a PITA when the > interface is in a state of flux and then raw XML makes more sense. > > Horses for courses I suppose. As with all technologies there's usually a reasonable argument for and against, and it definately matters what the particular use case in question is, sometimes SOAP is massive overkill, and sometimes more RESTful approaches seem very shoe-horned. Whatever happened to SOAP over SMTP thats what I want to know <g> - cj. > > > Thanks and regards, > > Francis > > Follow me on twitter https://twitter.com/fjfish > Blog at http://www.francisfish.com > (you can also buy my books from there!) > Skype: fjfish > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Ciaran <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Francis Fish <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> Last time I looked at summat like this twas a login object you had to >>> instatiate & populate 1st in order to pass through. This shuld be in >>> the default.rb. >>> >>> SOAP is designed to move complex objects about so parameters tend to >>> be objects in their own right. >> >> The irony of an acronym that *was* 'simple object access protocol' being >> used for complex objects never ceases to ecape me ;) ... FWIW though it >> depends entirely on the *type* of web service being called whether not it >> its complex objects or sets of objects, i.e. whether its rpc-literal, >> rpc-literal-encoded or document-literal, or document-literal wrapped etc ;) >> >>> >>> >>> Ruby -d willl populate the $DEBUG global and give you what Ruby's >>> sending down the wire. Never needed the proxies or that stuff & I must >>> have written 10 or so clients in my last job. >> >> Ahh I'd forgotten -d yes that would be a lot simpler than the proxy'ing >> approach, I'd still recommend first checking you can get things working with >> SoapUI first, will *generally* save you a lot of time in the long run :) >> - cj. >> >> >>> >>> >>> F >>> >>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2009, Ciaran <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Ok, cool. SoapUI is awesome.... If the element in the 'example >>> request' follows <!--- optional --> then it doesn't need to be supplied, >>> otherwise it does (this is all predicated on the assumption that the wsdl >>> being exposed is actually correct..which they often aren't :( ) >>> > - cj. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:05 AM, doug livesey <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Ah, I'm with you, cheers -- and from playing a little with soapUI, it >>> looks well useful, and even seems to suggest that there are parameters I >>> need to be passing that are not in the published API -- for instance, the >>> API talks about login( username, password ), whereas the xml snippet that >>> soapUI reveals for login has question marks for username, password, company >>> id, etc. >>> > So I guess I'll experiment with the driver created, passing different >>> params & inspecting the results until I'm happy that I'm passing the params >>> the right way (arrays, whatever, etc.). >>> > & cheers again for your help, >>> > >>> > Doug. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks and regards, >>> >>> Francis Fish >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NWRUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nwrug-members?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
