client-server

[Tyson Dowd]

On 29-Dec-2000, linas@linas.org <linas@linas.org> wrote:
> > If you want to write *whole language* bindings or need the equivalent of
> > IDL, then you start to develop infrastructure.  
> 
> well, I can always 'roll my own' xml-http protocol without too much
> hassle, so I assume the selling point of soap is precisely the 'whole
> language infrastructure' thing ... precisely what I thought m$ is
> advertising.

True.  The selling point for making your 'roll your own' xml-http like
SOAP is that other people can interface to your SOAP-like interfaces
using their generic language bindings.  Oh, and I guess you have less
hiring, training and documentation hassles, because there's a 
chance people may actually read a book that covers SOAP, but they are
unlikely to find "Gnucash's xml-http protocol for Dummies".

(Actually M$ has a lot more in the whole language infrastructure thing,
since their VM supports multiple language interoperation at the data
level on the same machine -- no marshalling required.  SOAP is their
interlanguage RPC mechanism, and marshalling to/from SOAP in .NET is
done by services attached to the VM -- not language tools).

-- 
       Tyson Dowd           # 
                            #  Surreal humour isn't everyone's cup of fur.
     trd@cs.mu.oz.au        # 
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~trd #