[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> That's a bit fast on the draw, Leigh. Perhaps some review of
> that Herzog thesis is in order.
>
> http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/staff/herzog/thesis
OK, thanks for the reference -- I'll do some homework. :)
But, I still don't understand the key driver for the web services initiative.
The REST folks have made a good case, IMO for one kind of 'web service'.
Published articles/tutorials discuss 'web services' which are very simple in
scope. Maybe these stockquote examples are simple helloWorld with a different
name, are a red herring, and the *real* requirement is for automated, orchestrated
business processes across the 'net. Another kind of 'web service'
If so, are limitations in HTTP really the main barrier to seeing those get deployed?
Here's a thought experiment. Lets say that Amazon decided to do away with
its HTML user interface, and produce an XML one. (I read somewhere they'd
turned a profit, so they must have some cash :). Exactly the same site structure,
pages, facilities, etc. Just an XML interface. Is this a web service?
- Couldn't I then use this interface to order books from my web application?
- Even if the site design isn't RESTful, what extra technology do they need?
If, as I suspect -- and I think you've said as much recently -- the devil
is in the orchestration, then where does all this effort on WSDL, SOAP, etc, etc.
help? The cynic in me says it doesn't[*]. The technology people are doing
what they do best -- make technology -- while the business people are wondering
how/if they want to revolutionise their working practices.
Cheers,
L.
[*] and noting Joshua Allens comments that Don Box gives speeches naked, or in
a bathtub -- then I can't believe that cynicism is dead yet! :) -- my first philosophy
joke. I'm on holiday, humor me :)
|
