UBF is much better than SOAP?
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