as i said, its a relic. i started using it where i work because we are still on php4 (dont ask) and was dismayed. i looked around at some articles online and thats where i got the impression it was the defacto standard back in php4 when java already had a robust soap api (and probly .net too). im sure it was great in its hey-day. the real problem using it anymore is, as you observed, you have to acquaint yourself w/ a totally new (to use SoapClient folks) API. and at this point (w/ SoapClient out there) i beg the question, why bother. i hate to suggest it, but you might want to take a little time and investigate what other restrictions you host has. if the list is long you may want to consider a move. it may seem arduous now, but the longer you wait the more arduous it will become. -nathan On 9/26/07, David Christopher Zentgraf <deceze@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 26. Sep 2007, at 15:26, Nathan Nobbe wrote: > > > i just read the first message in this thread and NuSoap immediately > > came to > > mind. though it will solve your problem you may end up like me, > > hating to use > > NuSoap under duress. i think it was really popular back in th php4 > > days when there > > was nothing solid that could be built right into php. anyway in my > > experience > > its a relic and i try to stay away from it if i can. > > I already see what you mean. > A big bummer is that even though it uses the same class name as the > default PHP SOAP module, it uses a totally different syntax/method > calls etc, which all seem slightly queer to me. Which is terrible > since the library the gateway provides wants to call (and extend) > SoapClient() in very specific ways. > > I don't think I wanna go down this road very far... >
