Re: [Babeldoc-devel] SOAP

[Bruce M. <br...@mc...>]

Hans,

Regarding your point of sending documents as attachments - it is well made.  I 
would rather send XML documents as body elements as opposed to attachments 
except if the documents are binary or not xml.  I want to do this for the 
same reason as you - it just makes sense to do this.

Soap has a number of real advantages to RMI, IIOP, etc but the single most 
compelling one is that it runs on HTTP and can be moved through firewalls 
quite easily.  It also has a good mindshare, and that counts for a lot.

regards,
Bruce.

On Monday 26 May 2003 04:50 am, Hans Benedict wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> after sending my mail on friday, I remembered that one of my reasons for
> choosing jaxm/saaj was, that axis actually implements those interfaces.
>
> The only class that is implementation dependent, is SoapHelper which
> relies on dom4j for handling the body content. If we would really use the
> first "A" of saaj, i.e. "Attachments", we could make even this part
> implementation independent. This would also avoid potential namespace
> problems (what, if the name of the root element of our document ist named
> "Body" or "Envelope"...), but on the other hand it is strange somehow, to
> add an xml document to an xml document as an encoded binary attachment.
>
> I am finished with jaxm so far, that everything works as before. I wanted
> to add some more error handling (sending and understanding SoapFaults, for
> example), but haven't found the time yet.
>
> I do agree, that using soap as the remote mechanism of choice is a good
> idea. Allthough my real life experience with soap is only a couple of
> weeks old, I really enjoy the simplicity of connection different services
> even across programming language barriers. Unfortunately I have no idea
> how hard the impact on performance is.
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> On Sun, 25 May 2003, Bruce McDonald wrote:
> > Hans,
> >
> > No, that sounds fine.   Are all your efforts to JAXM complete?  I want to
> > expand the soap functionality within babeldoc a lot.  At the moment I
> > believe that we can make SOAP the remote mechanism of choice instead of
> > RMI, IIOP, etc.  What are your thoughts here?
> >
> > regards,
> > Bruce.
> >
> > On Friday 23 May 2003 09:53 am, Hans Benedict wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 May 2003, Bruce McDonald wrote:
> > > > We should look into changing from soap4j to Axis for soap access.
> > > > Hans, since you seem to be the most knowledgeable in this area, what
> > > > are your opinions?
> > >
> > > After some discussions we had here, I have ported the soap module
> > > (which actually used apache soap) to jaxm/saaj completely.
> > >
> > > Do we use soap4j anywhere else?
> > >
> > > If you want to use an apache api for "political reasons" (becoming an
> > > apache project), I could propably also port it to axis.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Hans
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: ObjectStore.
> > > If flattening out C++ or Java code to make your application fit in a
> > > relational database is painful, don't do it! Check out ObjectStore.
> > > Now part of Progress Software. http://www.objectstore.net/sourceforge
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Babeldoc-devel mailing list
> > > Bab...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/babeldoc-devel