2008/8/1 Nick Gall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 7:16 AM, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Do UPS and SWIFT count as two obvious examples and then the Fraudlabs >> piece would be another. >> >> OTA (Open Travel Alliance) would be another set. >> >> Admittedly these are just large scale business pieces with large revenues. > > No they don't count until you provide some evidence to back up your > assertion that SOAP "works for the job" as you put it. Links to their > actual API documentation would be preferable. All I have now is your > unsubstantiated claim that SOAP is being used. I provided a link to > the GS1 transport stats, so I think it only fair that you provide an > comparable amount of evidence.
OTA - http://www.opentravel.org/Resources/Uploads/PDF/OTA_Architecture_Review.pdf SWIFT - http://www.swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=56873 (2004 report that talks about why they are doing it on the back of customers internal use) What acord are doing http://www.swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=64310 I can go on and on... > > What we may find is that all of them use only "empty header" SOAP > envelopes, which would indicate that while they use SOAP in a de > minimis sense, it really doesn't work for the job. Given that Mark appears to claim everything over HTTP this is a nice addition to the requirements. > Or perhaps we'll > find that they offer REST or POX alternatives as well, which also > would undercut their status as "obvious examples" of working for the > job, since the alternatives work just as well. No it wouldn't. SWIFT certainly do have POX alternative and people use it. The point in these environments is that people don't jump from one shiny thing to another. Getting it in there and getting it approved is tough. Clients change when they need to not just because there is a new API and you certainly don't force them to upgrade to a new interface if they don't want to. That people do demonstrates the effectiveness. > > What I am really seeking are large enterprises that are truly > leveraging the power of SOAP in ways that provide convincing evidence > that SOAP "works for the job" in ways that other approaches would > struggle. ? I thought we were talking external use here? If we are into large enterprise internal use we are in a different plane. > IME very few enterprises really need SOAP for what they are > doing -- it was put either put in by consultants as a checklist item, > or the tool used SOAP by default. The majority of SOAP use appears to > be simply driven by inertia, not any belief in its superiority in > doing the job. "driven by inertia"? So basically you are just in denial around any use. Any example I can throw up you will say "REST would be better" or "consultant made them do it". Open your eyes a bit and look at the big dark side of IT in large enterprises and see how they are using SOAP and don't care about the technology but instead care about getting the project live. 99% of the clients I have do not have public references on the fact that they are using SOAP, because its irrelevant to them, they wouldn't say if they used REST either. The technology isn't about superiority its about being "good enough". Steve > > -- Nick > > Nick Gall > Phone: +1.781.608.5871 > AOL IM: Nicholas Gall > Yahoo IM: nick_gall_1117 > MSN IM: (same as email) > Google Talk: (same as email) > Email: nick.gall AT-SIGN gmail DOT com > Weblog: http://ironick.typepad.com/ironick/ > Furl: http://www.furl.net/members/ngall >
