Geek Answers Handbook

Who needs (SOAP) reliable messages?

I found a very good argument against reliable protocol-based messaging (e.g. SOAP) . Is this topic a fiery war, or is there a sufficient degree of agreement on this?

I think the Netherlands study in the study should have included an example order.

ps I want Google to have a "contrasting" tool that finds sites with opposing points of view. Does Google Contrast sound great? :)

+4
source share
2 answers

This is not an argument against reliable messaging in principle, but against putting it on a transport level. This reminds me of a few Mysql developers years ago: “You don't need $ foo in the database, it's easy to do this at the application level” - where $ foo is usually “transactions” or “foreign keys”, or “restrictions”, or ... any of the many other things that they have since decided to implement anyway.

I don’t mean that implying that de Graul is necessarily wrong, as it is clear that he does not need reliable transport in his specific application, but I believe that “I do not need X, so you don’t either” is false generalization in principle and often incorrect in practice.

+3
source

Insecure messaging (e.g. UDP) can be reliable by providing communication messages:

S: Are you there?

R: Yes, I'm here.

S: Turn on the light (this is message 6)

R: OK.

S: Have you received message 6?

R: Sorry, what? (or no response)

S: include header (this is message 7)

R: Message 7 received.

R: Underwater light on.

+2
source

More articles:


All Articles