RE: [PEAR-DEV] PEAR::UDDI in a nutshell

> From: Christian Wenz [mailto:christian@wenz.org] > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 11:46 AM > > Hi Alan, > > Alan Knowles wrote: > > > Can you clarify - > > Is this a SOAP call ? - from the code and the UDDI website it looks > > like it.. - If so, It should really be implemented using one of the SOAP > > libraries.. > > yes, it is a SOAP call, but no, I don't think it should be implemented > using > one of the SOAP libraries at the moment. Let me explain why I think so: > > in the current version of PEAR::UDDI, we are making one SOAP call to one > of > the registries and basically return the result (the next release will > provide > methods to easily access certain portions of the result). All registries > support SOAP calls via HTTP, which we use. If we however chose to use the > (excellent btw.) PEAR::SOAP, we would not make our work much easier, since > we > would still have to assemble the data for the SOAP call "manuall". However > what we would do is to add five additional dependencies to PEAR::UDDI: > PEAR::SOAP and the four PEAR packages this depends on (now that I think of > it: > PEAR::SOAP depends on HTTP_Request which depends on Net_Socket -- so > shouldn't > PEAR::SOAP then also depend on Net_Socket?). At the current stage, we no it should not, as you can only install http_Request after Net_Socket has been installed > don't > think this is worth the overhead. In the very long run, we are also > considering providing a UDDI server, not just a client; then of course > PEAR::SOAP or any other PEAR extension might come in very handy, I agree. > There was a similar discussion about using HTTP_Request for the SOAP call, > but > again this would add three new dependencies (HTTP_Request, Net_Socket, > Net_URL) to the package. > We have not decided yet what we will do when we do more XML parsing in the > next release; we might very well depend on one of the PEAR XML helper > packages, however since we are looking for very specific information, we > might > also use regular expressions to get the desired information. > Tu sum it up in a nutshell, I am not a friend of many dependencies if that > doesn't make the code much easier. At the current stage, I don't see that > e.g. > a SOAP package would facilitate the UDDI code much, but if at a later > stage it > would, of course we would use it. Actually that is in line with what has been said before: Dependencies is something that should only be done if it saves considerable code. Regards, Lukas