|
Shaggar posted:tbh I would love to see an evolution of soap that fixes a lot of stuff, but its still the best we've got for now. you should use soap more often, i smell u thru the posts
|
# ? Jan 18, 2013 22:17 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 19:51 |
|
git clone trooper posted:torrent the web replace all links with magnet links. know all the md5 hashes of your files in advance to link to them. never change anything. how do you manage names? dns? i know let's use public key cryptography and now everyone hates you
|
# ? Jan 18, 2013 22:24 |
|
The only problem that XHTML offered to solve was nerd frustration that nontechnicals could create and read web pages
|
# ? Jan 18, 2013 22:31 |
|
Shaggar posted:that's because soap is not http only so it cannot rely on http features. OBAMA BIN LinkedIn posted:ever done soap over something other than http? good fun Shaggar posted:lol no of course not
|
# ? Jan 18, 2013 22:34 |
|
Shaggar posted:that's because soap is not http only so it cannot rely on http features. this is like refusing to use page numbers when you print on paper because the document has to be read on screen too. http has headers. soap could use the http headers instead of smuggling them inside the xml data. http uses urls. soap could use urls to distinguish between objects and their methods. http has caching and safe and unsafe methods, but soap doesn't really have this idea that functions might be idempotent or cacheable (really useful when you're on a network!) so we'll give that a miss for now. if you did this, soap parsing would be faster without having to resort to custom stream parsers, and your http middleware could actually do something useful. that, or just put soap over websockets and get it over with
|
# ? Jan 18, 2013 22:40 |
|
tef posted:
Yesssssss
|
# ? Jan 18, 2013 22:52 |
|
tef posted:this is like refusing to use page numbers when you print on paper because the document has to be read on screen too. soap already parses fast and moving half of it to http isn't gonna make it faster. it would probably be much slower since now you have 2 separate modules that have to handle different components and then send them to the application instead of the one. also nothing is preventing you from using http stuff for soap right now, its just that it goes against the goals of soap. but you do can do caching and stuff if you really wanted to.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2013 23:58 |
|
Shaggar posted:it would probably be much slower since now you have 2 separate modules yes now
|
# ? Jan 18, 2013 23:59 |
isn't transport protocol independence the entire point of soap and web service standards? seems a bit dumb and pointless to suddenly decide to tie it back to http....
|
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 00:17 |
|
Shaggar posted:soap already parses fast and moving half of it to http isn't gonna make it faster. you can parse http headers faster tahn you can parse xml, it's a regular language Shaggar posted:it would probably be much slower since now you have 2 separate modules that have to handle different components and then send them to the application instead of the one. oh yeah i didn't consider how slow java is
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 01:16 |
|
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/011713-java-spring-framework-265923.html good thing nobody uses a p lang like java for anything important right
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 01:51 |
|
java is the original p-lang, honestly.
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 01:55 |
|
spongeh posted:java is the original p-lang, honestly. lol that's an insult to p-langs Perl code:
Python code:
Ruby code:
Java code:
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 01:58 |
|
drat java really sucks in that real world example, BÄm!
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 02:02 |
|
spongeh posted:java is the original p-lang, honestly. U can tell what a java program does w/out running it which disqualifies it as a p-Lang
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 02:04 |
Cocoa Crispies posted:
ftfu
|
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 02:57 |
|
Zombywuf posted:Lol no, that stuff about enterprise coding above, that was my experience in dealing with EDI over XML over SOAP. It was ok though, they base64 encoded the security sensitive bits. if raw, unadulterated ansi x.12 edi is the solution to your problem then we won't need eyes where you're going actual x.12 implementor pictured seriously, though, if you think raw x.12 is better, you have never used it nightmare fuel imagine event horizon as your office every day forever
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 05:09 |
|
it dawned on me just now that while i call myself a cj, i have more experience as a developer than like half this thread respect your cjs, folks you don't know where we've been
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 05:12 |
|
Shaggar posted:the web would be 1000x better if only xhtml existed. until this thread, i never knew how much i agreed with shaggar about everything* *except p-langs
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 05:13 |
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:if raw, unadulterated ansi x.12 edi is the solution to your problem So somehow base64 encoding bits of it and putting it between <webservice> and </webservice> makes it better?
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 11:58 |
|
tef posted:this is like refusing to use page numbers when you print on paper because the document has to be read on screen too. soap over jms is actually a thing
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 14:49 |
|
you can improve the http mapping without changing soap semantics is this a concept so hard to grab
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 14:58 |
|
but but my transport agnosticism
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 15:19 |
|
who cares if your bullshit only really works over http just be happy it works at all you know
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 15:27 |
|
qntm posted:but but my transport agnosticism is completely unaffected
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 15:29 |
|
Zombywuf posted:So somehow base64 encoding bits of it and putting it between <webservice> and </webservice> makes it better? yes, that is honestly better. even if you have to parse ansi x.12 again at the end, at least you had a reliable transport (http over tcp) as opposed to ftp or as2 edit: a reasonable human, however, would just use CXML/xCBL. base64-encoding x.12 inside xml seems kinda dumb except for the reliable transport thing
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 17:26 |
qntm posted:soap over jms is actually a thing i done this during my masters and it's cool as heck
|
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 17:57 |
to be fair though i don't know poo poo about web services, i just know it's easy as hell to do with maven and apache cxf
|
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 17:59 |
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:yes, that is honestly better. even if you have to parse ansi x.12 again at the end, at least you had a reliable transport (http over tcp) as opposed to ftp or as2 why not just not put the xml poo poo around it and use http over tcp instead of xml over http over tcp
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 18:02 |
|
like eight loving pages later and you chumps are still arguing with shagger about xml and soap
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:14 |
|
rotor, please reveal us the ancient secrets to correctly measuring code quality
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:18 |
|
rotor posted:like eight loving pages later and you chumps are still arguing with shagger about xml and soap what did you expect?
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 20:22 |
|
rotor posted:like eight loving pages later and you chumps are still arguing with shagger about xml and soap lets mayhaps change the topic to source control ?
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 21:10 |
|
rotor posted:like eight loving pages later and you chumps are still arguing with shagger about xml and soap not our fault you can't program java without xml and soap
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 21:15 |
|
jooky posted:lets mayhaps change the topic to source control ? git though mercurial has a turtle so that's a point in its favor
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 23:18 |
|
Win8 Hetro Experie posted:rotor, please reveal us the ancient secrets to correctly measuring code quality did you get paid for writing it? then its good code.
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 23:21 |
|
git is fine for when you're working with lots of geographically separated people who either can't get or can't afford decent internet connections. so basically foreigners and poors.
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 23:23 |
|
github is a nice thing, but overall svn is a simpler, better tool imo
|
# ? Jan 19, 2013 23:42 |
|
svn seems simpler but that simplicity means it can get hosed really quick and if i god paid $100 for every hour i spent fixing svn servers oh wait i did
|
# ? Jan 20, 2013 00:07 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 19:51 |
|
I've administered several and have never had an issue. how did they get hosed
|
# ? Jan 20, 2013 00:09 |