[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: RE: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???

• To: xml-dev@l..., "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: Re: RE: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:24:00 -0500
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306FEE939@HQ5>

2/26/2002 3:01:31 PM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> wrote:

> I've  got serious guys here who say tightly coupled 
> web services are the way to go.  

I'd be awfully curious to know the reasoning behind that.
I thought that "tight coupling" was a famous design 
anti-pattern, more or less antithetical to "modularity."
Web services would seem to be that LAST place one
would want to use tight coupling . 

I can understand why people *want* to extend conventional
programming paradigms to the internet.  It's not
obvious how far that will take us ... certainly to the
LAN, probably to the intranet ... but Don Box's article
makes it clear that even SOAP-RPC's most fervent advocates
acknowledge that it hits the wall when we try to take
that to the Web.  "Fix HTTP to be RPC-friendly" is 
a perfectly logical response (although "fix the messaging
model to be HTTP-friendly" seems a bit more practical to
me). But I can't understand why someone would think that
"tightly coupled web services are the way to go" UNTIL
the standard internet hardware and software infrastructure
make this feasible.

Oh, yeah, and faster-than-light communication is invented,
assuming we want to coordinate the war against the aliens
with tightly coupled web services :~)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
    • From: Francis Norton <francis@r...>

• References:
  • RE: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Namespaces best practices
• Next by Date: RE: RE: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• Previous by thread: RE: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• Next by thread: Re: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread