Re: [DotGNU]Propoganda starts at home...

[Dan Kuykendall (Seek3r)]

Kent Nguyen wrote:
> 
> > yeah that was mentioned earlier to use plain old XML-RPC,  is that going
> > to be easy though? I mean if it was why would MS go and create a new
> > layer on top?
> > what functionality does SOAP offer that regular XML-RPC does not?
> 
> XML-RPC is an abstraction of SOAP.

What!?
You dont seem to understand the history at all.
It worked basicly like this (Maybe Dave will correct me if Im seriously
wrong in any of this).
Microsoft wanted to create an XML based RPC protocol, which they were
calling SOAP. They brought in several experts in to help, including Dave
Winer and started working on this XML based RPC. At some point during
the "Network Computer" push from Oracle, Microsoft wanted to take the
SOAP work and start doing everything internally. Dave Winer felt that
the concept of an XML based RPC protocol was too good for MS to take and
hide away, so he created XML-RPC and things started rolling. So at this
stage XML-RPC was created from the early SOAP designs. It is NOT an
abstraction of SOAP.

Well Microsoft continued developing the SOAP protocol and with all the
Anti-trust issues they released the new protocol. It includes support
for objects, multicall support, and was not dependant on http like
xml-rpc. SOAP is the result of continued design of the protocol. XML-RPC
is older and is kept from changing, by Dave Winer, in his efforts to
keep it stable and predicatble. I agree with Dave in how he limits any
changes to the xml-rpc protocol. It is the stable alternative to SOAP.
But SOAP clearly has benefits, and even Dave Winer supports SOAP and he
is a central authority of the two protocols.

> Personally I don't like SOAP 1.1 specification.  It's bloated.  They added
> stuff that don't make sense, and didn't add what make sense.  Look at SOAP
> 1.1 spec., the authors intentionally leave out security.  I wonder why? :)
> And I wonder who the authors to SOAP 1.1 spec are. :)))
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/

Notice Dave Winer, who is the leader/controller of the XML-RPC protocol?
XML-RPC also leaves out security. Is that two some kind of evil plot?

> I propose we create our own standard and GPL the standard.  This way, any
> modification to standard can be enforced and be published to the public.

This is just lame. We have two good protocols to choose from, both of
which are well supported. You want to create a third, which will have
what benefit? Security? It will be easier to add the security needs to
teh two existing protocols.

Seek3r