XML.com: Google's Gaffe [Apr. 24, 2002] Hmmm... Paul seems to make a blanket statement that SOAP is inferior in all cases to simple HTTP/URI/XML style services. That is false. Neither is SOAP superior in all cases to simple HTTP/URI/XML style services. The truth is that, in some cases, SOAP is better and in others HTTP/URI/XML is better. In the Google case, I'd agree that the simple HTTP/URI/XML approach would have been best. In other cases SOAP works much better -- for example, in the case where we have a document being routed through multiple intermediaries and possibly over multiple transports. The key problem here is that most folks can't seem to get past the misconception that SOAP is only about doing point-to-point RPC style stuff. Fact: SOAP is not necessarily the best protocol to use for simple point-to-point RPC style operations over the Web.
Now, should Google completely replace it's SOAP interface for one based on REST? No, they should support both. Define a single WSDL portType and two bindings.
I find it absolutely baffling why developers feel they have to have these worthless religious battles over which design pattern is best. Which is the most "Web-like"? Who Cares!? That's like asking which is better: a pick-up truck or an SUV. Pick the one that is best suited to meet your specific requirements and move on.
4:42:32 PM 
|
