Cart
|
[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
 Michael Brennan wrote: > >... > I was trying to explicitly present the view of a business developer who is > implementing business logic (in a CRM or ERP system, for example), and needs > to expose functionality via a web service. To me, that business logic is the > "application". And to me, I will need design patterns and models to guide my > design that I can relate back to the business functionality I am writing. > > The web service is just one portion of my design effort, and is not even my > primary focus. It is just an interface. If you want to take that point of view, and can get away with it, then there are a variety of technologies that are sufficient for business integration. I've used CORBA, DCOM and even XML-RPC in the mode you discuss. But consider that for the last several years, programmers have spent a massive amount of effort figuring out how to make a "web interface" to their software. Web application frameworks, J2EE, ASP, PHP, etc. etc. Part of this is because people have spent the last few years remapping their problem domains into the REST model. They don't know that this is what they are doing but to get the Web to work at all you have very little choice. In particular, you have to figure out how to give URIs to anything you want people to be able to reference, bookmark, hyperlink, etc. You have to understand the distinction between GET and POST. Putting a web services "interface" on your business logic is roughly as challenging. It requires thinking about the business from the outside in. You need to think about extensibility. You need to find relevant standards. You don't want to innovate if you don't have to, because that will make your partner's integration harder. There are a ton of scalability and security constraints that are much harder to solve than those within the organization. > ... It sounded to me like you were > trivializing that side of things and saying the web service is all that > matters and all that needs to be considered, and that the entire design > effort of such an application can be cast in terms of an extension to HTTP. No. Just that any coarse-grained, machine-to-machine *protocol* can be cast as an extension to HTTP. > Basically, it sounded to me like you were trivializing 99% of the sort of > work I've done in my career. That's why I took such strong offense. I understand and apologize for the misunderstanding. We had some terminological disconnects. Paul Prescod 
|
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
|
|||||||||
