Other things I don't get (WAS: Re: A Joeish Erlang distribution (long))
Wed Jan 29 10:07:40 CET 2003
Rather interesting benchmarks (CORBA vs JavaRMI vs XML-RPC) can be found
> I can see one good thing about XML:
> - It's one syntax that everyone seems to be able to agree upon. As soon as
> you say the 'X' word, people stop arguing. Since it's fairly easy to map XML
> to Erlang tuples, you can sneak some Erlang in there under the XML cloak.
> It's even perfectly OK to propose XML for log files in telecom systems. We
> should do that in OTP as well, even though you'll only get half as much
> relevant data into a given wrap log. (-:
> Apart from that, XML doesn't solve nearly as many problems as it creates.
> It's a typical example of a solution that's superficially simple but leads
> to endless complexity when applied to a slightly bigger problem. SOAP is
> hideous, and so is WSDL, XMLSchema, etc. XMLQuery looks nice in the
> beginning, until you get to the section, page after page, of "unresolved
> issues", most of which originate from the fact that XML is the chosen
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Per Bergqvist" <>
> To: "Niclas Eklund" <>
> Cc: "Per Bergqvist" <>; <>
> Sent: den 29 januari 2003 00:16
> Subject: Other things I don't get (WAS: Re: A Joeish Erlang distribution
> > Regarding parlay they have now started to publish xml/soap interfaces.
> > xml/soap for traffical interfaces is even more bizarro.
> > I asked a colleague the other day if he could explain one good thing
> > with xml and the funny thing is that he was totally confused about
> > this too.
> > If I think xml as such is totally overrated, I believe that soap is
> > pure stupidity. Since this xml hysteria has been bugging for quite
> > some time now it would be interesting to hear others opinions.
> > Am I way off here ???
> > (I'm sorry if this all sounds like I have pms, but I truly believe
> > that traffical interfaces should have simple and efficient codings.)
> > /Per
More information about the erlang-questions