Talk:SOAP

[edit] Example message

• Are you kind to put a xml-tag-on-display to diff htm-code in the formatted boxlet?188.25.49.130 (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

is the tag lost the battle of title head ; havn`t notxxxd by 3/jan/2011.wikilord^{[citation needed]}

I`m out

== SOAP is agnostic of transport protocol, so it's quite a bit tilted to refer to this aspect as "ignorance of...HTTP." ==Template:Long title

Under consideration is this statement from the Disadvantages section: "Most uses of HTTP as a transport protocol are done in ignorance of how the operation would be modeled in HTTP" SOAP is transport protocol agnostic, a fact that is situationally beneficial or detrimental. An equivalent argument would be that REST is detrimental because it does not communicate over SMTP. Both of these arguments are opinion at best when included on the main pages (of SOAP or REST). Readers will be better served by each of these arguments being included in a side-by-side comparison and excluded from the main definition pages. Wjburnett (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Template:Country data long explanation

Potentially negative impact of firewalls is applicable to all non-browsing HTTP activity

Under consideration is the paragraph beginning with this statement in the Disadvantages section: "When relying on HTTP as a transport protocol, a firewall designed to only allow web browsing is forced to perform more detailed (and thus more costly) analysis of the HTTP packages."

The impacts SOAP activity may have with firewalls is in no way unique to SOAP. This same argument can be levied against REST, XML-RPC, AJAX, anything using JSON, etc.

This argument or disadvantage does not belong in this article, nor does it belong in articles for REST, AJAX, etc. The final sentence of this paragraph, "This is why it is generally a bad idea to use a transfer protocol such as HTTP as a transport protocol for which it was not designed." clarifies that the core argument is whether HTTP should be employed as a transfer protocol. Wjburnett (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Template:M.s.d.n.

Appropriate support of a standard by languages or frameworks is not a reflection on the standard itself.

Under consideration is the paragraph beginning with this statement in the Disadvantages section: "Although SOAP is an open standard, not all languages offer appropriate support." This paragraph should be removed from the SOAP article because:

1. The factuality of the statement is questionable, and increasingly so as the standard is supported.
2. Although the lack of support of a standard in programming languages or frameworks may influence the utilization of a standard, such lack of support does not reflect negatively on the standard itself.

• you`re absolite

Wjburnett (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

example applications

What are example applications of SOAP used in the wild? Which (popular) websites/webservices use it? Thanks, --Abdull (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

How fast you want it because it seems meer a joke compared to xml ?LOL By the way which f you say is binary fastest (tcp::ip, ::udp s.o.a.p. or maybe dchub)`?

--wl