SOAP/XML-RPC experience, etc. (was RE: [Serusers] What do you have against SOAP? (was Carrier-grade framework for SER)

[Jiri Kuthan]

I'm digging through old archives and I am just wondering how people feel about 18
month later about the discussion about SOAP, XMl-RPC, etc. Any feedback would be
appreciated -- what you think about it now and more importantly what's your experience
if any. All in all, many are asking for a roadmap and input to that is most
welcome.


-jiri

I have an opinion on this topic too but didn't want to begin egoistically with mine :-)


At 12:48 25/01/2005, David R. Kompel wrote:
>Greger and everyone else that is interested,
>
>Please consider before ruling out SOAP, that SOAP has more off the shelf
>libraries to support it then XMLRPC. Please consider the folks that use
>Microsoft platforms for their back end processing and databases, and
>keep in mind the following:
>
>Yukon is just around the corner. It has SOAP services built in, as well
>as the ability to call SOAP services directly from T-SQL. 
>
>Also we implement a carrier grade platform using SER, which is in use by
>a number of VoIP providers here, with the following extensions:
>
>1) An extra module which allows for RADIUS URI translation, extended AVP
>lookup, via extra string parameter which lets you identify what AVP
>query you wish to do, and an extra flag in the registration database
>"FOREIGN" registration, to identify a contact which has been replicated
>from another SER server.
>
>2) A service which speaks SOAP to he outside world, (it's own http
>server on non-standard port) to allow an external interface to the SER
>FIFO interface. It use is for external Voicemail MWI Notifies, and to
>send refresh, reboot and report notify messages to SIP devices.
>
>3) A generic provisioning server for almost any SIP device, which can be
>provisioned via TFTP, HTTP, or HTTPS. This server dynamically builds
>configuration files in memory on the fly for any device based on RE
>pattern matching of the filename, mapped to SQL statement, which returns
>device parameters. 
>
>With just these above three things, we can implement a full carrier
>grade system, with full automated device provisioning, all CLASS 5
>features, such as unlimited level hunting, recursive call forwarding
>(even when each device in the forwarding has a different dial plan) and
>just about anything else you can think of. To accomplish this, we depend
>on SOAP as a method of component communication because we consider any
>platform, including Microsoft and the ".NET framework" as things we need
>to interact with.
>
>If your goal is to provide a framework for integrating with other
>platforms, SOAP bring a lot more flexibility to the game, and make it
>more compatible with more platforms.
>
>Remember, this is just an opinion, however it needed to be expressed,
>just so you know what other folks are doing with SER.
>
>--Dave
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: serusers-bounces at iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces at iptel.org] On
>Behalf Of Greger V. Teigre
>Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 11:29 PM
>To: Juha Heinanen
>Cc: serusers at iptel.org
>Subject: Re: [Serusers] Carrier-grade framework for SER
>
>Juha,
>Yes, I completely agree with you. However, I don't need to read the spec
>and 
>far from understand it before I use it... ;-)  So I did start to look at
>
>SOAP and have very good experiences, both in terms of usability and 
>scalability.
>    But, I don't have strong opinions, if the people who are going to
>use 
>the interface are all against SOAP, XMLRPC is the right choice.
>
>The xmlrpc-provisioning work you have done, can it be coordinated with 
>Andreas' effort?
>g-)
>
>Juha Heinanen wrote:
>> Greger V. Teigre writes:
>>
>>> As I indicated in an earlier email, I would be interested in taking
>>> part in a joint effort to further develop ser's high-availability
>>> and scalability (HAS).  I would probably have to do some development
>>> anyway, and I would prefer to see such support in the public domain.
>>> In Nov/Dec I called for responses on a SOAP-based provisioning
>>> interface, but heard nothing,
>>> so here is an overlap of interests.
>>
>> greger,
>>
>> we have done some work on xmlprc based provisioning and it looks
>> promising.  xmlrpc spec is three pages long and even i can understand
>> it.  soap spec, on the other hand, is far too thick and goes way above
>> my head.
>>
>> -- juha 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Serusers mailing list
>Serusers at iptel.org
>http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>_______________________________________________
>Serusers mailing list
>Serusers at iptel.org
>http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

--
Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/