[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
My theory of proper choice is it depends on who
is choosing and their contexts. My theory about
the WSIO is that code is shipping and they are commissioned
to make it "work properly". These are related
but not the same.
1. MS, IBM, et al are choosing UDDI/SOAP. Why?
They haven't said. They say it works.
2. A company chooses a toolkit based on many
issues. One is a lot of integratible applications
and particularly if the cost of integrating these
is low because the complexities are hidden.
3. I may not get a choice. My company chooses.
I'm here trying to understand these choices.
"Work properly" seems desirable. So far,
no one has stepped up to prove that UDDI/SOAP
won't work properly. And if I understand
the implications of using HTTP/URI pure it will
be more work to achieve the same results as
the transactions become complex. You say it
will open up security holes, won't scale, etc.
I say, keep it coarse grained and it can work
well because the scale issue is less important.
As to security, what about WS-Signature which
the W3C just released?
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@prescod.net]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
>
> The popularity wasn't based on the protocol.
It's just a theory.
1. My theory is that protocols will get chosen because they work
properly.
2. Your theory is that they will get chosen because they ship with MSDN
and other vendor-backed distributions.
3. Dave's seems to be that they will get chosen because they are popular
with end-users and surrounded by hype and excitement.
Obviously I subscribe to my theory.
Paul Prescod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
