Am 05.06.2013 um 15:41 schrieb S Krish <krishnamachari.sudha...@gmail.com>:
> In our works ( VA).. we had the "Document-Literal" SOAP wrapper approach and > generally works easy and fine. > > I would say it is order more easier than what I see Norbert mention, unless I > miss something in deference to his better experience in Pharo. > Can you elaborate on your explanation? I would like to know how your approach works and how it is different to what I do. > With XMLRPC in Pharo I could do a lot Java - Smalltalk experimentally... and > I believe it should not be very tough to cobble up the simplest workable SOAP > interface bi-directional with Document/Literal approach > > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-whichwsdl/ > > The namespace complication, which we have avoided/ I would avoid till the > reasons are high enough to justify. > I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are saying. I think to build any generic interface for SOAP you need to parse and generate XML properly according to the WSDL spec (I answered Svens email right now explaining it). I would like to see another approach that is simple and smarter than mine. Norbert > ******************** > > Not tested.. but did see this... at some time.. all squeak based.. > > http://www.mars.dti.ne.jp/~umejava/smalltalk/soapOpera/soapCore.html > > http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/1399.diff?id=29 > > http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/1228.diff?id=33 > > http://www.mars.dti.ne.jp/~umejava/smalltalk/soapOpera/index.html > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Johan Brichau <jo...@inceptive.be> wrote: > Thanks for all the feedback! > > The SoapOpera library is using XMLSupport and I think it is a basic > generate/parse library for SOAP messages. > Given the time constraints and the limited number of soap calls we need to > implement, I think we will roughly go for Norbert's approach (using > XMLSupport) and see if we can/need to work on the SoapOpera library in the > future. Or maybe we make a 'lightweight soap' library... I don't know. > > Johan > > > On 03 Jun 2013, at 19:31, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > > > > > On 03 Jun 2013, at 18:08, Norbert Hartl <norb...@hartl.name> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > Even using the Java stack with all its tools and frameworks, SOAP is still > > terrible. Especially if you have to interface with Microsofts' idea of SOAP > > and web services. > > > > But Johan implied already that it would not be fun. > > > > On the other hand, I think that XML Support _is_ namespace aware. So it > > would not be too hard to actually generate/parse SOAP messages for real. > > You could get already pretty far with that, IMHO. > > > > Sven > > > > PS: In another life I did http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-soap/ - it was > > never perfect but it kind of worked to talk to Google AdWords. > > > > -- > > Sven Van Caekenberghe > > http://stfx.eu > > Smalltalk is the Red Pill > > > > > > >
