I can perfectly understand the feeling :-) Phil
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> wrote: > > Am 03.06.2013 um 18:14 schrieb "[email protected]" <[email protected]>: > > ah ah +1000! > > And WS-* with all kinds of crypto doesn't help! > > No, I'm done with it since that project I described > > > http://norbert.hartl.name/blog/2010/10/05/isnt-soap-supposed-to-make-it-clean/ > > Norbert > > Le 3 juin 2013 18:09, "Norbert Hartl" <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> >> Am 03.06.2013 um 15:46 schrieb Johan Brichau <[email protected]>: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > I have the distinguished pleasure of needing to interface with a SOAP >> service from within Pharo Smalltalk. >> > >> > Currently taking a look at SoapOpera and iWSDL projects on Squeaksource. >> > These projects seem to be unchanged since 2010 and broken in Pharo 1.4 >> > >> > Probably I will be spending some time to bring these to life again in >> current Pharo, but if anyone has some better pointers to use, please let me >> know. >> > >> Welcome to the club! >> >> The short version is: I use SOAP templates ! (like a lot of people out >> there) >> >> In order to use SOAP properly you need a full namespace aware xml parser, >> a xml schema parser, a WSDL parser plus code generator and the will to >> abuse HTTP completely . >> Even if you build a perfect tool you'll maybe face the not so perfect >> responses from the remote side. So my strategy with SOAP since years is >> (advizable only if there isn't a huge API with a huge variance of >> parameters): >> >> - Create all needed SOAP calls with any tool and snapshot them >> - build a small templating tool to insert values >> - send the snippet with every misguided header/setup the remote side >> needs to operate >> - take the response and first thing is strip off SOAP envelope >> - parse the xml and use pastell or something like that to query values to >> build objects (using it this way even has a name to make it look more >> professional. It is called document oriented SOAP :) ) >> >> Sounds hackish? Sounds stupid? Yes, you are right, it is. But it is by >> far less stupid as SOAP is. >> >> Sorry but I had to write this :) >> >> Norbert >> >> >> >> >
