From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dave Wagner
Sent: Sat 10/22/2005 4:24 PM
To: LDS Open Source Software
Subject: [Ldsoss] Cool Family History technology coming soon - SOAP v. RESTv. XMLRPC Continued
I will not pretend that I know a lot about any of these options
however,
what I do like about SOAP is the ability to be
handed data in a specific
type, e.g. string, int,
datetime, etc. I suppose, although I don't know
for sure
as there aren't very many WS providers that offer XMLRPC (at
least for the types of things I've looked into), that XMLRPC would
provide type support being that it is still XML.
I think that calling one easier than the other is kind of a
relative
thing, I mean it really depends on what you
need to do with the
information and which
platform/language your consuming it with. I prefer
SOAP
mostly because I develop for windows using .NET. I can reference a
SOAP WS and consume it just as easily as any DLL. To me,
this is much
easier than trying to consume data from an
implementation of phpGedView
[1]. In order for me to do
that I would have to write a class that
passes arguments
through one long string and returns the data (holding
session information as well). Then I would have to write another class
to parse out every possible combination of returned
data, which gets
very tedious when there are complex
relationships with the data (as is
usual with
genealogy). I know this because about a half a year ago I got
about 50% done with a winforms interface to phpGedView [1] when my hard
drive crashed, I honestly did not want to do all that
again.
I know what you mean about paypal though. I'm currently creating
a
rather large data mining application for my company
and am being pained
all the way by Paypal's API. It was
simply not well thought out.
Creating several custom
complex types just to return all data as a
string (with
the exception of some datetime values) is just annoying.
Dave
[1] http://phpgedview.sourceforge.net/
Richard Pyne wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2005
at 18:26, Mac Newbold wrote:
>
>
>> Today at 7:57pm, Dave
Wagner said:
>>
>>
>>> Let
me push my luck and suggest that SOAP be presented as the
>>> primary means of exposing the churches content. XMLRPC and
REST
>>> are just annoying IMHO (REST
especially).
>>>
>> As long as we're presenting suggestions, I suggest allowing
both
>> SOAP and REST/XMLRPC. I find SOAP
annoying, because I think it is
>> too big and
bloated and complicated. People (especially
>>
developers) like "simple" as long as it meets their needs, and
>> only go complex when necessary.
>>
>
> Amen to the "simple", but I'm not sure I would call SOAP
simple,
> but I think it could be.
>
> I recently finished a project for work
interfacing with a
> service (PayPal Website Payments
Pro) that could have been done
> in less than a day
using name=value pairs, less than a week
> using XML,
but took 2 months using SOAP. I will admit that this
> was my first project using SOAP and could have been much simpler
> even using SOAP had the wsdl and xsd been trimmed
down to only
> what was needed instead of
encompassing every minute piece of
> data that the
service provider has availble in every service it
>
offers (eBay). My experience has been that protocols and
> standards that start with the word "Simple" seldom are.
>
> --Richard
> _______________________________________________
> Ldsoss mailing list
>
[email protected]
> http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ldsoss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
_______________________________________________ Ldsoss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
