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

RE: Web Services/SOA (was RE: XML 2004 weblog items?

• To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@a...>
• Subject: RE: Web Services/SOA (was RE: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:04:40 -0800
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcTXBfot30DQsIqrSeuzRgLA7JS2RwACHS2g
• Thread-topic: Web Services/SOA (was RE: XML 2004 weblog items?)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@a...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 9:59 AM
> To: Dare Obasanjo
> Cc: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  Web Services/SOA (was RE:  
> XML 2004 weblog items?)
>  
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/04/01/Indigo/default.aspx
> > 
> > * Boundaries are explicit
> > * Services are autonomous
> > * Services share schema and contract, not class
> > * Service compatibility is determined based on policy
> > 
> 
> I like them too because they're constraints of a sort.  But 
> they are also pretty vague, and therefore don't provide a 
> whole lot of guidance for developers.  Perhaps if they were 
> expanded upon, so that each described, in architectural 
> terms, *exactly* what was constrained, they'd be of greater 
> value (yes, I've seen the expanded version, but it still 
> falls short IMO).  It would certainly allow others to 
> constructively critique them.  As is, they seem a bit 
> "motherhood and apple pie" to me, akin to "Components shall 
> not be tightly coupled", or "The interface shall not expose 
> implementation details".

I've felt the same way and mentioned it to Don and others on the Indigo
team that more guidance is needed beyond the high level exhortations
that have come out of Redmond so far. I suspect that I'll eventually end
up co-writing something in this vein especially now that I am a user of
XML Web Services technologies as opposed to being responsible for low
level components the infrastructure is dependent on. 

> 
> It's also interesting to note that Don is still promoting RPC 
> based SOAP services (via his use of wsa:Action), so it seems 
> these tenets of his don't exclude it.  I think that's a 
> significant deficiency.

I haven't paid close enough attention to WS-Addressing to debate the
merits of your claim but it is on my to-read list. 

--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
Ade's Law: Anybody can win -- unless there happens to be a second entry.


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.  

• Prev by Date: Re: Web Services/SOA (was RE: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Next by Date: RE: Web Services/SOA (was RE: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Previous by thread: RE: Web Services/SOA (was RE: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Next by thread: RE: Web Services/SOA (was RE: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread