|
Updated: 9/1/2002; 7:00:46 PM.
 |
Friday, April 19, 2002 |
David Watson: the meek shall inherit the data. Priceless.
8:16:16 PM 
|
|
Archipelago: if the strong typing is necessary for interop, then it's necessary isn't it? There is some evidence that the GoogleAPIs are highly interoperable, perhaps in part because the encoding of type information in the wire format is not required.
Do I understand correctly that if someone were to graft the Google API to a system that required strong typing then the version above would be necessary to interop and that the version on your page would fail? There is some evidence that Google's implementation of these APIs are written in a strongly typed language.
4:22:12 PM
|
|
Archipelago: Am I supposed to assume that all that stuff isn't necessary? If it isn't necessary at least some of the time, why is it there? In general, strong typing is not required in SOAP, nor is it required with the Google implementation of these APIs in particular. I've stated my position on that subject, but the example given more closely matches the BDG, perhaps to ease interoperabilty with those implementations which insist on it. I also made my feelings known about the fact that the BDG adds additional MUSTs in areas that the SOAP spec doesn't.
Still waiting for the lightbulb to go off.
2:59:05 PM
|
|
Dave: BTW, why doesn't Sam support XML-RPC? Just curious. Maybe Brent, Daniel and Eric could teach him a thing or two? I support SOAP, why doesn't Sam support XML-RPC? Or does he? You can still see my fingerprints here and I do forward on the occasional e-mail. But mostly, I'm still waiting for the lightbulb to go off. Hopefully Brent, Daniel, or Eric can help out here.
2:03:59 PM
|
|
DiveIntoMark has a nearly apples to apples comparison (modulo a gratuitous reordering and omission of parameters) between SOAP and XML-RPC, but omits any line by line comparison. Still waiting for the light bulb to go off.
12:55:18 PM
|
|
Yesterday seemed to be bash SOAP day. Contrasts were made between "a thing of beauty" and "absurd obfuscation". These guys clearly see something I don't see. In an effort to learn, I propose the following. I have taken a simple request from the GoogleAPI and removed all inessential [pun intended] details. The result uses only concepts described in the Gentle Introduction to SOAP. What remains is not only WSDL compliant and but it also actually works with the live Google server.
Since a number of people feel pasionate about this, perhaps one of them could take the time to do the same for a message which works with the googleGateway and do a line by line comparison? <SOAP:Envelope xmlns:SOAP="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/">
<SOAP:Body>
<gs:doGoogleSearch xmlns:gs="urn:GoogleSearch">
<key>00000000000000000000000000000000</key>
<q>absurd obfuscation</q>
<start>0</start>
<maxResults>10</maxResults>
<filter>true</filter>
<restrict/>
<safeSearch>false</safeSearch>
<lr/>
<ie>latin1</ie>
<oe>latin1</oe>
</gs:doGoogleSearch>
</SOAP:Body>
</SOAP:Envelope>
6:21:24 AM
|
|
diveintomark: this is the way I want the world to work.
5:54:03 AM
|
|
|
