[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, 30 May 2005 5:39 pm, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> I don't agree with Michael that "web services" is as meaningless a phrase
> as "service oriented architecture" but it is close.
I've been baffled by what web services are for the last few
years.
But after getting spat at last week at cebit here by some
religious zeolot... not intentionally... he was just foaming at
the mouth.. I think I finally understand what web services
actually are.
What I think they are is the most current incarnation of
the client/server protocol. Moving along from Named-pipes,
netbios servers, tcp/ip blah blah..
I'm told that when first Microsoft demonstrated named-pipes
to developers there was a roar of well.. silence. Nobody got
it.
Writing a server with named pipes was supposed to be as
easy as. And I do believe that it was/is.
And then the internet appeared and we suddenly want to
do the same over tcp/ip. So somebody botched together
a micky mouse protocol, married in the concept of daemons
(sorry - services), and bing-go we have our latest piece
of technology which our clients can pay lots of money
for.
Us bloody old timers can see that it's nothing more than
named-pipes over the internet.
The only real problem with that is that few companies can
really afford them these days, except for the big ones.
but no doubt, it will be rehashed, reworked and then
finally renamed for years to come as some sort of holy
grail to throw money at for very little return.
oh well.. I guess "web services" is best directly
translated into "day-job" for some. And there's nothing
wrong with that.
David
--
Computergrid : The ones with the most connections win.
|
