Eric Newcomer writes about the use of doc/literal when building WS applications. He supports the idea of document exchange to achieve platform integration. Of course, I agree with Eric since this is exactly what Jim and I have been advocating for some time.
I would like to comment on this particular comment by Eric…
The doc/literal style would seem to be the most abstract or the most “loosely coupled,” since it does not include data typing (although data typing is provided by an associated XML Schema) and does not include a method name in the message.
Indeed, the use of doc/literal style may seem to offer loose coupling. As Don Box says (MSDN show part 1, part 2), we share schema and contracts and not classes. However, doc/literal and Web Services do not guarantee loose coupling. One could still come up with protocols and patterns that go against everything that Eric suggested (yes, as you’d expect, WS-RF comes in my mind 🙂
As 2025 is now behind us, I wanted to share a few reflections from my…
Few months ago, we bought a sculpture from a local art fair for our Palm…
There’s a unique energy that comes with starting something new — a blend of excitement,…
As I continued work on BrainExpanded and its MCP service, I came to realize that…
Just over a month ago, I published "Playing with graphs and Neo4j". Back then, it…
After my initial implementation of some BrainExpanded-related ideas on top of dgraph using its GraphQL…