Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Databases Programming Software IT

Microsoft Rinses SOAP Out of SQL Server 2008 109

Julie188 writes "A Microsoft SQL Server 2005 fan toppled over in surprise when he got this error message from SQL Server 2008 (he was running the SQL Server 2008 Upgrade Advisor tool): 'In SQL Server 2008, SQL Server native SOAP has been deprecated and will be removed in a future SQL Server release ... Avoid use of SQL server native SOAP in new development work, and plan to modify applications that currently use it.' No more SOAP-based Web services for your SQL Server database? Native XML was only added in v.2005 and was much ballyhooed at that time."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Rinses SOAP Out of SQL Server 2008

Comments Filter:
  • it won't be missed (Score:5, Informative)

    by inmate ( 804874 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2008 @04:59PM (#24770449) Homepage
    as a developer on sql2005, i found very little use for it. the xml parsing and displaying functionality will remain in 2008, only the native xml webservices are being pulled. it made no sense anyway, it had nothing of the richness that web services offer and made most administrators nervous about its security (and rightly so!) why anyone in their right minds would have used it...i don't know!
  • by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <> on Wednesday August 27, 2008 @05:22PM (#24770709) Homepage Journal

    which probably explains why it was so enthusiastically adopted by Java

    Actually, SOAP was pushed heavily by Microsoft as part of .NET. Java took a more holistic approach and created APIs for SOAP, XML-RPC, REST, and many other services. There are about 3-4 different ways you can do each of them, with two of them being official or semi-official. (The reason for the break is that the methodology for providing such services was greatly enhanced by the attribute tags added in Java 1.6.)

    If you're doing SOAP services, I'd blame the market for slurping up Microsoft's push rather than blaming your tools which happen to support the standard.

    What's the old saying? "It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools?" ;-)

  • by code addict ( 312283 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2008 @05:49PM (#24770979)

    I think that poster's comment is a little misleading. From the article and linked materials it would appear that only integrated SOAP web services are deprecated, and not native XML as the poster implies.

    Details of deprecated features here: []

  • by Tridus ( 79566 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2008 @06:35PM (#24771585) Homepage

    I don't get why Microsoft ever thought this was a good idea. Regardless of your opinion on SOAP (and I don't hate it nearly as much as some other folks here), having the SQL Server dishing it out directly was always kind of silly. Thats what a Web Server is for.

    Removing silly code that just creates more places for security holes to hide is a good thing. Not doing it at all would have been better, but at least Microsoft is fixing that mistake now.

  • by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <> on Wednesday August 27, 2008 @07:34PM (#24772423) Homepage Journal

    Isn't that the whole problem with Java in a nutshell?

    Only if you consider choice to be a bug. Personally, I like the fact that I don't have to use the officially sanctioned method if I don't want to. And the older official methods do not deprecate with the introduction of the newer methods. Both can still be used.

    In fact, there is very little deprecated overall in Java. It's just that there is often more than one way to skin a cat. Choose the one that works best for you.

  • by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <> on Thursday August 28, 2008 @09:14AM (#24778137) Homepage Journal

    First, MySQL is a toy. It's fundamentally braindamaged and you won't be happy migrating from SQL Server. Look at PostgreSQL which has much more functionality and is much faster in typical business settings. A lot of people like pgAdmin III for routine admin work; not having run an SQL Server before, I don't know how that compares to what you already know.

When a fellow says, "It ain't the money but the principle of the thing," it's the money. -- Kim Hubbard