Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: RE: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
 I just sat down with a guy who said that and he told me he meant that exchanges based on standard vocabularies is "tight coupling". Now it makes better sense: terminology confusion. Nevermind. So let's rolllllllll back. We don't need to debate if a message is a document or doc vs data-centric. We may want to inquire into the costs of how the size of the message/doc affects the cost of negotiation and maintaining fidelity. We may want to inquire into the performance efficiencies of lots of small messages vs larger ones and the time between transactions. We know (as you point out) that tight interfaces are a pain to manage. Yet on the private IP networks, two way stateful systems are a reality and there are protocols designed to let one operate in stateful or stateless mode (e.g., voice apps). Anyone who thinks we can magically hook up the world's businesses and skip the step of creating the vocabularies missed Markup 101. On the other hand, I'm still not sure the interface model changes that requirement. I can see it working either way. But that is a business app. It is intelligence, not command and control in real time. For desktop level C2, one really might want RPC and a more tightly coupled system. What do you think? The aliens are busy fighting one another and can't stop to bother with us or are out there making love and wondering why we haven't joined them. Either way, it's their party so far. len -----Original Message----- From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...] 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. 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
