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

Re: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v s acti

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v s action-oriented
• From: "Jeff Greif" <jgreif@a...>
• Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:48:21 -0800
• References: <YWQO3X2X94TRQN636395GBPD0A6EB2.3c5f2f06@MChamp>

I believe the author of the 'rant' mentioned below has a poor understanding
of the CORBA paradigms and out-of-date knowledge of what CORBA supports of
the various communications possibilities.  There is nothing to prevent you
from having a very strict signature for an RPC call, one of whose parameters
is a string containing an XML document with essentially arbitrary content
(from the set of documents that would be relevant for whatever service the
RPC provides.)  This would significantly perturb the author's discussion of
coupling for the CORBA scenario.  CORBA also provides asynchronous message,
event-driven protocols, real-time and QoS (quality of service) features, and
pluggable message transport systems which might allow something based on the
Unix System V streams protocols that Hopper is proposing as the new way to
do things.

www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/TAO.html has a lot of resources worth looking at.

Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Champion" <mc@x...>
To: <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 5:01 PM
Subject: RE:  Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v s
action-oriented


> Message exchange patterns are closely related to the issue of "coupling,
and
> this is brought out in the rant against the RPC paradigm that someone
recently
> posted a link to
> http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper/technical/corbabad.html
> "if you think about it, all forms of RPC, including CORBA, require a
fairly
> explicit detailing of the messages to be sent back and forth. You have to
> specify your function signature pretty exactly, and the other side has to
> agree with you. Also, the way RPC encourages you to design protocols tends
to
> create protocols in which the messages have a pretty specific meaning. In
> contrast, the messages in the SMTP or XML protocol have a pretty general
> meaning, and it's up to the program to interpret what they mean for it.
This
> bumps RPC protocols up on the coupling scale a fair amount, despite the
claims
> of the theorists and marketers."

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v saction-oriented
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • RE: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v saction-oriented
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Next by Date: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Previous by thread: RE: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v saction-oriented
• Next by thread: Re: Categories of Web Service messages: data-oriented v saction-oriented
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread