RE: XML, RPG, Web Services, Joe = Holy War was ->RE: [WEB400] Re: Modify the IE Browser

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Bartell, Aaron L. (TC)
> 
> So why did Joe go to all the trouble of arguing with me instead of
just
> asking me what I meant by "portable and loosely coupled"?  Joe?

Uh.  I said:

"But I have no idea what YOU mean by loosely coupled.  Evidently, you
consider HTTP communications using XML to communicate with an RPG
program to be loosely coupled, but I don't agree.  Why it has to talk to
an RPG program is beyond me.  If I'm communicating via HTTP, I may be
talking to a servlet, not an RPG program.  The servlet can invoke the
RPG server.

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."


Remember, this is in response to your statement that was arguing with
me.

"> If you don't use an HTTP call with XML to an RPG-CGI program (web
> services)
> from your Java app how do you make it portable and loosely coupled?"


See, you said I was wrong because I wasn't using HTTP, XML and RPG-CGI,
because it wasn't "loosely coupled".  I responded that I disagreed with
the term, because it pretty tightly coupled the application to a
specific communication technique.  I said "too many buzzwords" because
you were stringing together a bunch of technological terms that weren't
necessarily related.  I mean, you don't need XML to talk to RPG-CGI, or
vice versa.  But your statement indicated that somehow you had to have
all these pieces or it wasn't technologically sound.

This is what I differed with, before we launched off on the "my
vocabulary is bigger than YOUR vocabulary" thing (note I include us both
in that particular statement).


So, I did ask.  I asked, and you pointed me to www.w3school.org.  That
was where things really degenerated.


Joe