RE: RPG as a Web Service Consumer -- RPG400-L

> From: Bartell, Aaron L. (TC)
> 
> Actually, I have a chunk of EDI x.12 experience.  I played a major
role in
> implementing our first go at Harbinger (now Inovus).  Now that you
know
> that, does that change your opinion about me?   I didn't think so. . .
;-)

<<sigh>>

No, Aaron, because you weren't around at the beginning of EDI.  You used
the final product, which is only as good as it is after decades of
tweaking.   You have no idea what the original standards wars were like.
And since most of the people who push web services and/or XML are like
you and do not have that history, they are doomed to repeat it.  I can
pretty much guarantee that the web services arena is going to go through
as bad, if not worse, of a standardization process.  Because what they
have now SUCKS.


> The problems you stated aren't with XML it is with the organizations
that
> use them.  I think we are on the verge of getting some nice tools to
> process XML so we don't even necessarily know that XML is involved.

Oh lord.  I sure hope not.


> I think you miss the point of XML.  You aren't just trading up 50
> characters
> for 350 characters without any benefit, you are getting much more
> functionality and flexibility with many more technologies built on an
> around it.

Oh give me a break.  Aaron, I'll let you in on a little secret: XML IS
TEXT.

Sheesh.


> Are some of technologies difficult to use? Most definitely, but it is
> the start of a new way to communicate (and yes I know that the XML
concept
> isn't new, I have researched since the last time we had this
discussion :-
> ).

This is NOT a new way to communicate.  It's the same old crap, just
adding a whole lot of baggage in order to make your application
programming a tiny bit easier.  And frankly, unless you're using Java
and are pretty comfortable with XML document processing, it's not that
much easier at all.


> >XML and particularly SOAP are not the universal panacea.
> I agree.  But where used correctly, XML can be much more appealing
> solution than others that claim to work just as well.

Look at all the conditionals!  XML is just one option, and it's not that
great of an option.  And SOAP is a crappy use of XML.


> XML is not
> the end all, but it definitely can play a role in most peoples
> organizations.

Oh man, so can CSV files.  There are lots of places where XML is
overkill, just like EJBs.


> I don't care to move this over to WEB400 if you are just going to
argue
> about 350 bytes going over a communication line.  If that is what we
are
> going to talk about I am fine with not talking, because I have beat
that
> horse before :-)

Great, then feel free to quit talking.  Because 350 bytes a message is
important.  On the new wave of communications devices (cell phones and
the like) with effective rates of around 28kbps or less, 350 bytes of
overhead (700 for each round trip) means you can't even send five
messages a second.  That's a ridiculous tradeoff just so some Hiphop
Code Jockey doesn't have to actually write code.


Joe