[REBOL] Re: Google + SOAP
From: gavin_mckenzie:fastmail:fm at: 20-Apr-2002 16:44
Petr,
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 16:52:25 +0200, "Petr Krenzelok"
<[petr--krenzelok--trz--cz]> said:
> what was your post about? :-) Are you suggesting proper XML support is
> needed?
Oh dear...have I become a one-trick pony? A broken record? Actually,
I wasn't intending to revive that old rant. I'm sure I've bored people
enough with it over the last couple of years.
> I think that if RT does not want to produce better XML support
> in the language, they could license your stuff? Can your scripts be
> used to parse SOAP, WSDL, UDDI?
Yes, maybe, sort-of...it depends on just how robust of a solution is
required. My scripts aren't suitable for creating a bulletproof-grade
solution; for a start my parser lacks namespace support (though I've
procrastinated on finishing namespace support that I started eons ago).
Further, I don't provide a script to reverse my xml-to-object
conversion. Though I've got a script 90% done. Of course, as we know,
it is really easy to get software to the 90% completion stage isn't it?
Oh...one day I'll finish them...or so I keep telling myself.
We do know that there are fine REBOL scripts out there to do XML-RPC,
and I *think* SOAP. But I'd bet that all of those scripts (including
my own) to be fragile; subject to breaking outside the common cases of
XML, or SOAP, or XML-RPC. Nonetheless, within a controlled
environment, they may be a sufficient solution.
> Or do they use any kind of aproach your
> scripts are not capable of parsing? I remember you told me something
> like your scripts are not correctly working with XML schemas, as this
> is rather complex thing?
>
Namespaces, schema, etc. You can cook up a solution that doesn't
absolutely require these things, but it helps to have support for them.
Schemas: yep, they're real complex alright.
Gavin.
--
Gavin McKenzie
http://www3.sympatico.ca/gavin.mckenzie
[gavin_mckenzie--fastmail--fm]
http://fastmail.fm
