Graham Dumpleton
grahamd at dscpl.com.au
Tue Jun 14 06:20:11 EDT 2005
On 14/06/2005, at 6:17 PM, Gregory Bond wrote: >> The upshot is that I have to agree with >> Graham D's response: use XML-RPC: it's well standardized and usable >> from a huge number of clients with minimal effort. > > I was under the impression that MS web services were SOAP based not > XML-RPC based? If you are writing some new services, does it matter what MS uses for there own? If you are having to write clients against MS web services then I can understand the need to talk SOAP, but other than that SOAP wouldn't be my first choice, or my second, or my third, .... > I'm a complete newbie when it comes to Web Services, but the > requirement is pretty much that Joe Punter somewhere on the web can > use his normal PC dev tools and code up calls to my Python functions > (in VB, Excel or Visual Studio etc) just as easily/conveniently as if > I had published the service using IIS or whatever is the official > MS-blessed way of doing this. > My international colleagues are using WebLogic or JBOSS for doing web > services, but they are a java shop and all my logic is in python! Hmmm, I have never seen the words "easily/conveniently" mentioned in conjunction with SOAP before. I also wouldn't assume that just because you publish a SOAP API that someone will go to the effort of specially writing clients to use it. The only SOAP API I have seen really take off in that way was Google search. > You are in a maze of twisty little acronyms, all different. Sounds just like SOAP. :-) Sorry if I sound cynical. You might find the following an interesting read: http://www.manageability.org/blog/stuff/soap-is-dead Reminded me that the other alternative to SOAP/XML-RPC is REST style web services. Graham
|