Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Web Services/SOA (was RE: [xml-dev] XML 2004 weblog items?)
- From: Michael Champion <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 16:42:21 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=J9wtswpBifGMefCbcHrh5xvQjm6/Oa1SMdkIvpwTR3LMRm/nx0Dnj4OtsnhcE1YIpSvLGRaICQxRFTKb8dqSL0q+3hDjvSA5Ol+EGih7D5OATiG9J8tCt8iui7eoKZ0pDRboeQsZDFQixl4NSByVDkSYVKV6KSvR4G7k3E0FcJk=
- In-reply-to: <20041201205838.GN3016@markbaker.ca>
- References: <20041130025726.GJ3016@markbaker.ca> <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20041130054325.GK3016@markbaker.ca> <41ADF4B5.email@example.com> <20041201205838.GN3016@markbaker.ca>
- Reply-to: Michael Champion <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:58:38 -0500, Mark Baker <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >Practically all the Web services I've seen deployed on the Internet
> > >(via xmethods.net) is RPC too.
> > So what?
> Well, I think it means that many well-intentioned developers, who want
> to contribute to the Web services vision, aren't being given a
> consistent (or even coherent) message about how exactly they should go
> about doing that.
IMHO the modern "web services vision" is that web services are
*technologies* that don't imply a consistent message about how they
should be used. One can use SOAP/WSDL to support plain-ol' RPC,
distributed object architectures, or services oriented architectures.
With WS-Transfer or a roll-your-own SOAP format, one can use them to
support an essentially RESTful architecture.
That's the main reason (at least in 20/20 hindsight) for the WS
Architecture working group not continuing on a Recommendation path: it
concluded that there is no "Web Services Architecture", although there
are clearly multiple architectural patterns that can be implemented
using web services.