WSDL and "standard" live in the same town but not on the same street.
The can't live in the same house because Microsoft keeps changing
before everyone else agrees on a standard. I learned this the hard
way when trying to implement WCF what it first came out and not even
the likes of SOAPUI (arguable the most popular WSDL "digester" out
there) didn't even support the WSDL flavor that Microsoft was
purporting.

If lazy programmers can build lighter weight software that requires
less maintenance, well, then I guess "lazy" is what I look for.

Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com
http://mowyourlawn.com/blog/



On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Maurice O'Prey <Maurice.Oprey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Aaron Bartell wrote
You don't need to know a lot about WSDL's until you start developing
more complex data streams that talk to many different platforms and
languages. <snip>
you will inevitably say to yourself: why not simplify this approach to use
HTTP
POST + simple XML (like I said earlier in this post).

Isn't that just prolonging the problem?  Lazy programmers talking to other
lazy programmers?

I kind of thought WSDL was a standard? (if not lets go back to exchanging
CSV text files). One system to another (one system) is not an option.

Maurice O'Prey


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.