just got a direct email about my WS-Idiots post, in which i attacked people attacking WS-*. i'm going to answer that email publicly ...
regarding my experience with CORBA ... i have programmed with CORBA (check the resume). also did J2EE, but never DCOM. granted it was 5 years ago and i was right out of school (read green). yes, i know its composable. at that time it was very difficult to develop with, and interop was near impossible. it was great at interop within an intranet scenario. over the internet and between partners ... not so good. it probably has gotten alot better since then.
regarding XML-RPC ... i agree that XML-RPC is for simple scenarios and WS-* is for the enterprise. but I think that basic SOAP (without WS-*) is just as simple as XML-RPC. and as your needs change, then you can build on top of that.
regarding WS-* ... i agree that nobody will deploy WS-* without reliability, transactions, security, etc... where did you get the feeling that i did not agree with that? that is exactly why XML-RPC / REST dont have any legs. that is why mobile devices need WS-* for CF, which i constantly bash MS over the head about. i also agree that it will take years for WS-* to really take off.
now my turn for questions ...
do you think the WS-* specs are that complex?
more complex than the CORBA specs?
do you think that CORBA is more interoperable than WS-*?
do you think CORBA can be used in simple scenarios like basic SOAP?
why are the largest software companies pushing WS-* and not CORBA?
the open source argument does not cut it because IBM likes open source and they are pushing WS-*. and there are open source WS-* implementations such as WSE for CF, Plumbwork Orange, WSE for MONO, plus many others outside of the .NET world