On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:20:38 -0400, "Brian Lloyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>This is a very important point - I think people would rather
>be able to implement SOAP services selectively rather than
>by One Big Switch that may expose just about anything. I would
>very much like to see a project started on dev.zope.org that
>starts off by drafting a "user manual" that describes how SOAP
>services would be implemented from the standpoint of a Zope
>developer. This would give us a good way to come to agreement
>without worrying about code just yet.
Ive been considering this point of view over the weekend, and I think
I disagree. Zope already has a perfectly good definition of 'web
service' - the definition used by ZPublisher and the xml-rpc
implementation (and FTP, to a lesser extent).
Developing Zope services already involves enough detail - An extra
layer of abstraction here is undesirable.
I suspect many people using xml-rpc are, like me, not completely
satisfied with its feature set. Id been looking to soap to fill these
holes, and I would be disappointed if soap wasnt implemented in the
>Some attention should be given to how SOAP services get exposed by
>other systems at this point (they do *not* just suddenly expose
>every in-memory object to SOAP).
And that's plainly not the case for Petru Paler's soap implementation
- he only exposes the same objects and methods exposed by ZPublisher.
>There are a number of people
>who have recently voiced their (legitimate) concern that by
>default *practically everything* on their site is xml-rpc
Those people were concerned that too many things were exposed via
ZPublisher also.... My interpretation was that the issue is one of
access control, not publishing protocol.
Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -