UBF is much better than SOAP?

Mikael Karlsson mikael.karlsson@REDACTED
Tue Dec 10 09:33:18 CET 2002


I had a look into Joe Armstrongs paper about Universal Binary Format (UBF):
"Getting Erlang  to talk to the outside world" -

and at the UBF home page: http://www.sics.se/~joe/ubf/site/home.html
which states that :
UBF(B) is a programming langauge for describing types in UBF(A) and protocols 
between clients and servers. UBF(B) is roughly equivalent to to Verified XML, 
XML-schemas, SOAP and WDSL.

Should not the "roughly equivalent to"  statement be replaced with "much 
more than"  since UBF(B) also takes care of the dynamic part (protocol 

I do not know much about XML-Schemas and SOAP but doesn't that only 
give you the possibility to define the messages, in a very verbose way? 
It is like defining the all Signals between two systems but without sequence 
diagrams. This would not  work for a day in the telecom world, but it seems
that you can build large .internet infrastructures this way. Or am I missing


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list