RE: Re: Modify the IE Browser -- WEB400

> From: Bartell, Aaron L. (TC)
> 
> By doing the above you are tied to the iSeries platform.

See, Aaron, this is why our discussions don't get very far.  You start
out talking about RPG-CGI, and now you're complaining about being tied
to the iSeries.  Which side of this discussion are you going to stay on?

Me, my ONLY business logic server will be an iSeries or its descendant
running OS/400 or its descendant, with RPG talking primarily natively to
a DB2 database.


> <Joe>
> And why is an HTTP call with XML any less loosely coupled than a
toolbox
> call to one of the OS/400 host servers?  Maybe I want to use a serial
> connection.  Or APPC, for security reasons.  Unfortunately, you've
tied
> me into TCP/IP with your tightly coupled web services design.
> </Joe>
> 
> There are secure ways to transfer data with web services, try SSL over
> HTTP (HTTPS).

You miss my point.  I may not want to use web services.  It's just
another communication technique, and far from universally accepted at
that.  Just because it's the latest, doesn't mean it will last.  Not
long ago CORBA was the big thing, but it's gone.  Jury is still out on
web services.


> <Joe>
> Me, I'll just put a wrapper around the delivery class and reimplement
it
> as needed, without having to touch my application.  That's the point
of
> OO design.
> </Joe>
> 
> That is a perfectly acceptable way to write it, say with interfaces,
but
> you will have to write a new interface implementation every time a you
> move that servlet to another platform and try to use it's own method
of
> communication. HTTP and XML are relieving the programmer from having
to
> know how every other platform in the world works.

No, Aaron, it's not acceptable - in today's deluge of technology, it's
pretty much the ONLY way to write code, at least code that stays
marginally useful for more than a few months.  You divide the design
into layers, code them independently, and then re-implement as
necessitated by business decisions.

You do not design to technology, you try to keep your design technology
independent and then implement the appropriate technology for business
conditions.  Otherwise you get stuck with outdated standards.


> http://www.w3schools.com/wsdl/default.asp
> http://www.w3schools.com/soap/default.asp
> http://www.w3schools.com/xml/xml_http.asp

Aaron, it's not that I don't understand the concepts.  My guess is I've
written more XML parsers than you've used, not to mention generators.
It's just that I don't string them all into one incoherent mass of
buzzwords (HTTP using XML to talk to RPG-CGI is loosely coupled!).
 
For example, in case you're unaware, SOAP no longer requires HTTP or
XML.  The developers consciously removed that restriction in SOAP 1.2.
So, one of the standards you point to so glowingly has already realized
that strict adherence to the HTTP and XML is a bad idea.

Seems like maybe they know something you don't...

Joe