[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Simon,
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>
> And for those of us more interested in the Web than in the members, it
> may not be such a bad thing to see the hype-meisters of Web Services
> take their toys and go someplace else.
>
> They might conceivably do less damage to XML and the Web that way, in
> any case.
>
I guess I'm part of the hype - I've written the chapters, given the demos.
As far as I can see WS is basically sound. There are some potential
technical problems, but none of them look like show-stoppers to me:
[1]
Interoperability is largely but not fully mature - you may get problems
like different conventions for generating SOAPActions
[2]
there may be problems with SOAP being laggy and slow (compared to what now?)
[3]
UDDI's query interface feels somewhat ad-hoc and makes various GUIDs too
visible.
None of these problems give WS a competitive disadvantage with any
existing technology stack. Web Services simply takes us to a new area of
low-cost interoperability.
Consider the achievement of WS - any connectivity project which has a
pattern of "X builds a server and describe a protocol; Y builds a
client; X and Y debug like hell, blame each other and wonder if anyone
has ever done it before but give up because they wouldn't be able to
re-use any of it anyway" will become seriously simpler, cheaper and more
robust.
Now if I've overlooked some major technical flaw, or underestimated the
impact of one, I really would like to know. But right now I can't see
any problems that can't be solved in stage two, and I don't see how this
is going to damage XML and the Web.
Is the success or the failure of Web Services that you fear more?
Francis.
|
