Why XML sucks (not only today, but especially today)
-
Where on earth did you get my phone number from?
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
The Phone Book from BT[^] ;p Or maybe it was my answer for one of your CCCs? :D
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
No doubt evil witchery was involved :D
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
that's some hackneyed magic there. looks like it was designed by someone with a grudge against their employer. LOL
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
The standard message I had to implement pretty much predates the internet (and I guess XML as well) :sigh: Here's a two line example.
DN1400150015090337000150024010001500250200015002305000150906010001509070900015001901000150021060001500460100015210101000152102010001500280100015002904100150032010001500360310015003802000150104010001500350310015003403100150304060
VN1400152019053100000001230491000011000938127???0000110009381272938127020011890580A E6181581Now imagine having 100s of lines :D (There may be some personal data in there, but I think it's safe to share :laugh: ) The SOAP service is just so we can exchange these kinds of messages. You can imagine XML is actually the lesser of evils :D
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
Looking good! :cool: :laugh:
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
So I have to make this SOAP (1.1) service so some third party application can connect with our system and request data. Fine, just tell me what the SOAP service should look like. So I get a WSDL, which is invalid because two types with the same name have the same namespace (x3). So I get a new WSDL and right after that a third because the other wasn't correct, which, after testing with the third party application (which I don't have myself), turns out to be incorrect because the namespaces don't match. And I go back to the old WSDL, which still has the same type names. I've just implemented the fifth WSDL with XSD's and I have no idea if this is going to work or not. The version of the WSDL is embedded in the namespace, but apparently it's not possible to just give me that version of the WSDL. I'm getting different versions in the namespaces, but I just changed the version to match that of the third party application and hope it'll work when I can test this stuff again. The best part is that this is apparently a standard that's maintained by a work group and I'm the third person to implement this standard (about 10 years after the last implementation) :~
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
SOAP is fine. It's those dumb Java developers who build web services using all kind of Java-proprietary crap and shout "it works with Java clients" whenever someone points them to the specs they violate. I bet on the providing side you have a Java implementation. Sorry for adding my rant to yours, you triggered some very angry memories (I spent too many hours trying to fix other parties' mistakes).
Luca The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance. -- Wing Commander IV En Það Besta Sem Guð Hefur Skapað, Er Nýr Dagur. (But the best thing God has created, is a New Day.) -- Sigur Ròs - Viðrar vel til loftárása
-
Yeah, the message itself isn't XML, it actually predates XML. The only thing that's XML is the (EDI) SOAP service that communicates the messages. The service has a few functions, like requesting a list of all messages (without content), requesting a single message (with content), updating the message status and sending a message for others to pick up. It's pretty difficult to generate that service if I can't get a proper WSDL though :sigh: We're building the SOAP service so that any customer with a specific application (which are quite a few) can receive messages automatically. The only alternative is to take a subscription elsewhere, send them our data (in another simpler format) and they do the communication. The subscription is fine for smaller businesses, but gets very expensive when you have lots of customers. We also have customers who download the message manually (from a website or from an email) and then manually input the file into the application. This industry isn't known for their modern take on IT :laugh: I know that the work group that maintains the message format also wants to move forward to XML or even JSON, so that would be a welcome change, but as long as the current message works no one wants to pay for that.
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
EDI... : shiver :
-
EDI... : shiver :
Oh, I'm very familiar with EDI. Not only because I used it decades ago, but because of a recent contract (which lasted literally more than ten times longer than I was originally contracted for) which involved equipment used in airports -- so any new technology had to be cleared by roughly 9,785,276 governments, before it could be deployed. EDI was just the tip of the iceberg. Anyone remember the fifty flavours of serial data? DOSKEY and DOS batch-script syntax? Think you know everything because you can plug in an Ethernet cable? Think again, and get your soldering iron out. Of course, I remembered pretty much nothing about the old tech, because I hadn't used it for somewhat more than a few weeks (which is about the limit of my memory), but relearning is a damned sight quicker than learning for the first time (especially if you have no frames of reference for it), so it was a job where kiddies need not apply.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Yeah, the message itself isn't XML, it actually predates XML. The only thing that's XML is the (EDI) SOAP service that communicates the messages. The service has a few functions, like requesting a list of all messages (without content), requesting a single message (with content), updating the message status and sending a message for others to pick up. It's pretty difficult to generate that service if I can't get a proper WSDL though :sigh: We're building the SOAP service so that any customer with a specific application (which are quite a few) can receive messages automatically. The only alternative is to take a subscription elsewhere, send them our data (in another simpler format) and they do the communication. The subscription is fine for smaller businesses, but gets very expensive when you have lots of customers. We also have customers who download the message manually (from a website or from an email) and then manually input the file into the application. This industry isn't known for their modern take on IT :laugh: I know that the work group that maintains the message format also wants to move forward to XML or even JSON, so that would be a welcome change, but as long as the current message works no one wants to pay for that.
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
Hey, if they like old stuff, talk them into using PostScript, which does the job of XML but a thousand times better! XML is like PostScript that's had its bollocks chopped off; kiddies only revere XML because they haven't used PostScript (and, of course, because it was "The Next Big Thing!", for a while). And no, PostScript has nothing to do with adobe. It was adobe's effing about (in their creation of Pee-Defecated-Files) that led to so many people abandoning PostScript, because they somehow managed to make it look hideously inefficient and slow, which it Shirley ain't.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
that's some hackneyed magic there. looks like it was designed by someone with a grudge against their employer. LOL
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
honey the monster, codewitch wrote:
looks like it was designed by someone with a grudge against their employer humanity
FTFY :D
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
SOAP is fine. It's those dumb Java developers who build web services using all kind of Java-proprietary crap and shout "it works with Java clients" whenever someone points them to the specs they violate. I bet on the providing side you have a Java implementation. Sorry for adding my rant to yours, you triggered some very angry memories (I spent too many hours trying to fix other parties' mistakes).
Luca The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance. -- Wing Commander IV En Það Besta Sem Guð Hefur Skapað, Er Nýr Dagur. (But the best thing God has created, is a New Day.) -- Sigur Ròs - Viðrar vel til loftárása
Wow, I never thought about it that way, but now that you mention it... All my bad experiences come from incompatible Java clients :~
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
Hey, if they like old stuff, talk them into using PostScript, which does the job of XML but a thousand times better! XML is like PostScript that's had its bollocks chopped off; kiddies only revere XML because they haven't used PostScript (and, of course, because it was "The Next Big Thing!", for a while). And no, PostScript has nothing to do with adobe. It was adobe's effing about (in their creation of Pee-Defecated-Files) that led to so many people abandoning PostScript, because they somehow managed to make it look hideously inefficient and slow, which it Shirley ain't.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
I uhhh... might stick to regular XML :~ And we don't actually like the old stuff, we're just forced to use it :laugh:
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
