[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>
>...
>
> > Clay
> > Shirky's "What Web Services Got Right... and Wrong"
> > has a different
> > take: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2002/04/22/clay.html
>
> Interesting, I tend to agree with a lot Shirkey said.
I disagree with much of it.
For example:
"With Web Services, if you can read SOAP you can write SOAP. If you can
write SOAP you can read SOAP. So modulo only the firewall issue,
everybody's a peer."
I don't understand that statement at all. If you think of "the firewall
issue" as the issue of:
* how do we address nodes (IP has limitations here!)
* do organizations want end-user nodes to have addresses?
* how do organizations handle security policies for incoming messages?
* are organization's goals aligned with end-user's goals
Then he's saying: "Given that a Mexican made the trip from Mexico city
to Tijuana, immigrating is just a matter of crossing the border and
presenting oneself at the INS office."
Clay knows, as well as anybody, that the problems in P2P are really,
really hard. And he should know, as a programmer that reading/writing
messages (whether SOAP or HTTP) is the tiniest, most insignificant part
of the problem. So I really don't understand that bit at all.
I also don't see *any evidence* in the SOAP specification that it is
more adept at bidirectionality than HTTP. After all, the part of SOAP
that works interoperably uses HTTP as its addressing and transport
mechanism so if you can send a message to a SOAP peer then you can send
one to an HTTP peer. In theory, SOAP could run on a P2P system like
Jabber but what's the point? If Jabber has already solved the hard P2P
problems then what is SOAP adding other than buzzword compliance?
Paul Prescod
|
