Comments on: Ruby and WS

By: Rajith Attapattu

Rajith Attapattu — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:27:21 +0000

Steve, I enjoyed the blog post as well as the Sep/Oct 2006 IC column. I write most of my web based testing tools in python using web.py or cherry py. I also use python/ruby scripts heavily as a configuration tool for my broker testing. It's a lot more powerful and expressive than editing some XML or meddling with a GUI.

By: Labnotes » Rounded Corners - 188 (Catching up)

Labnotes » Rounded Corners - 188 (Catching up) — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:51:45 +0000

[...] want to know what lies ahead, where to go next. The people who can point you there are the ones not locked-down to yesterday’s technology: The SEs, most of whom worked only in Java and C++, kept looking at it and scratching their heads. [...]

By: steve

steve — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:13:22 +0000

Stefan: in general that would work, but I worked at the WSDL level because Artix uses WSDL as an abstraction over multiple protocols and message formats, other than just SOAP over HTTP. This IC column (pdf) describes that approach. For example, Artix lets you use WSDL to describe existing CORBA services, MQ services, etc. By having the Ruby client operate at the WSDL level, the client can access services regardless of their underlying distribution technology, as long as Artix supports it.

By: Stefan Tilkov

Stefan Tilkov — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:45:59 +0000

I wonder: why even bother with WSDL (even within the WS-* space) – wouldn’t it be better to simply use a “duck typing” approach and turn a Ruby-style invocation, probably combined with an E4X-style builder pattern, into the corresponding SOAP message?

By: Patrick Logan

Patrick Logan — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:23:57 +0000

This reminds me of Windward Solutions’ Smalltalk implementation of CORBA. I only used a few CORBA implementations for a few languages (Java, C++, and Smalltalk), but the Smalltalk implementation was far and away the easiest to use.

Something about simple dynamic languages, or something.