Article:		Google's Gaffe
Subject:		Let's lose XML too!
Date:		2002-04-25 12:36:19
From:		Paul Prescod
Response to: Let's lose XML too!
I would encourage you to re-read the article (if in fact you read it at all before posting). The article says that message size is one of the least important reasons for moving away from SOAP RPC.

Previous Message

Up

Next Message

• Let's lose XML too!
  2002-04-26 03:16:48 fotios bass
  
  Hi,

  
  I have to admit that I only read the first part.

  
  However, if message size is basically unimportant to your argument why do you bother with it at all and why is it that you mention it first in your article?

  
  Starting like that, what is the motivation for me to keep reading?

  
  Fotios
  
  

  • Let's lose XML too!
    2002-04-26 16:01:49 Paul Prescod
    
    "However, if message size is basically unimportant to your argument why do you bother with it at all and why is it that you mention it first in your article?"

    
    I need to show the wire dump so that people understand what SOAP is and is not doing. Message size naturally jumps out at you when you look at the wire dumps. More subtle issues are addressed later.

    
    "Starting like that, what is the motivation for me to keep reading?"

    
    Some people just like to learn things. Many people made it to the end. Not, it seems, anyone who was predisposed to criticize the article. With only one exception, their criticisms demonstrate that they didn't read it or didn't understand it.
    
    
    

    • Let's lose XML too!
      2002-04-27 08:55:22 fotios bass
      
      > I need to show the wire dump so that people
      > understand what SOAP is and is not doing.

      
      sure

      
      
      > Message size naturally jumps out at you when
      > you look at the wire dumps.

      
      When you speak, or more importantly write, do you always say or write what comes naturally? Or do you prefer a more structured, planned, smart way of presenting your arguments?

      
      
      > More subtle issues are addressed later.

      
      too bad

      
      
      > Some people just like to learn things.

      
      and I suppose you are the one to teach them

      
      
      > Many people made it to the end.

      
      Many people watch jackass

      
      
      > Not, it seems, anyone who was predisposed to
      > criticize the article.

      
      Well, I thought you were predisposed to criticize SOAP.

      
      > With only one exception, their criticisms
      > demonstrate that they didn't read it or
      > didn'tunderstand it.

      
      You should hold on to this ONE and make him/her your friend, cuz who knows when the next ONE who actually understands you comes along.

      
      SOAP is good
      Try it
      It keeps you clean

      
      
      
      

  • Let's lose XML too!
    2002-04-26 03:18:53 Edd Dumbill
    
    If you're willing to take so much time responding in public, you owe it to the author to consider their whole argument.
    
    
    • Let's lose XML too!
      2002-04-26 03:22:19 fotios bass
      
      and how much time was that?

      
      As for the categorical imperative implication, it is less categorical and less imperative than you may think.

      
      Fotios
      
      
      

      • Let's lose XML too!
        2002-04-29 03:39:50 jim fuller
        
        lets reconsider this persons viewpoint a corner case to the requirements of web services.

        
        as follows;

        
        a) our crusader needs something really simple, so he/she can understand it.

        
        b) our crusader needs us to do all the hard bits of thinking, so he/she can convince someone else ( like potential employers ) that they know what they are talking about; otherwise he/she will have to *learn* how to argue dispassionately about higher level semantics instead of just arguing.

        
        c) since Microsoft, Sun, IBM and just about every company has decided to dope up all their products with xml technologies, he sees they have made a grave error and his clearness and vision is a lone voice against the evil software empires that we all live in. hurrah

        
        d) since he has disavowed xml in general, re xml being a bloated format, yet he/she still says SOAP is good and keeps you clean, which of course means that he would like to see web services based on; actual soap products, SOAP on a ROPE being the main protocol, of course.

        
        e) we are dealing with someone who spent a few years learning COM then DCOM, and now is in a form of technical depression; unable to learn as the medulla stem or frontal lobe is calcifying.

        
        regards, jim fuller
        
        
        

        • Let's lose XML too!
          2002-04-29 11:35:09 fotios bass
          
          cutlass,

          
          your nominalist persona coverup attempt did not succeed with me as I could still clearly see what comes after cutl.

          
          Years of manual name magling and extreme OLE sports have honed my ocular parsing abilities beyond anything you or anyone in your genepool could ever dream of achieving.

          
          Still, I somehow think that you should direct those of your arguments that do not violate axiomatically established paradoxical constraints to the article proprietor, with soap substituted for xml.

          
          Who knows? Maybe him and you will one day meet in a steamy shower room where SOAP is dropped.

          
          Fotios
          
          

          • Let's lose XML too!
            2004-08-10 08:08:07 drennane
            
            
            All you seem to be trying to get across in your replies is the fact that your some sort of super intelligent sea of vocabulary... by the way.. there's an "n" in mangling.