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

[sip]

I'll weigh in. 

I'd prefer SOAP. I know you're gung-ho on XML-RPC, and I can understand that
its simplicity would make it useful in a lot of ways, but for the most part,
the XML-RPC libraries I've seen for Java, C++, and PHP have all been a bit of
a mess (Marquee/Redstone isn't TOO bad, but it's still rather poorly
documented overall). SOAP, while being more complex, is a bit more powerful as
well, allowing me to define the data types I'm using and accepting, and how to
use them, as well as allowing a great deal more flexibility when it comes to
specifying the characters sets I'm looking for and the like. 

On the flip side, SOAP is still a growing standard. Some people will be turned
off by the fact that it is almost certain to change as time goes on, but for
any of us who got in on the ground floor of the Java spec, or PHP, or half a
dozen other languages out there that change their APIs on a semi-regular
basis, a spec or protocol that changes is hardly daunting. 

We've used SOAP for a lot of things to connect to various services, and most
of the telco services we interconnect with use SOAP and not XML-RPC. That
would mean we'd end up having to do things two ways for all our apps and
server side code, but if it has to be done, it has to be done. 

It reall boils down to why do you like XML-RPC and what do you see its
strengths are in terms of SER? If there's good reason to use one over another,
even given the limitations, then I don't see a problem with it.  As long as
it's all well-documented with example code and such, it should be just fine. 

Again, it boils down to the fact that good documentation goes a long way
toward making even the most intractable projects into workable solutions. 

N.

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 11:05:24 +0200, Jiri Kuthan wrote
> 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> Serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers