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

Re: Traditional RPC

• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: Re: Traditional RPC
• From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@c...>
• Date: 19 Feb 2002 12:18:03 -0600
• Cc: 'Paul Prescod' <paul@p...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306FEE8C2@HQ5>
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306FEE8C2@HQ5>
• User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> writes:

> My theory of proper choice is it depends on who 
> is choosing and their contexts.   My theory about 
> the WSIO is that code is shipping and they are commissioned 
> to make it "work properly".  These are related 
> but not the same.

> 1.  MS, IBM, et al are choosing UDDI/SOAP.  Why?  
> They haven't said.  They say it works.

According to my theory (Perspective 1 vs. Perspective 2,
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200202/msg00832.html),
the reason why is that these things put the Perspective
1 guys in control of Perspective 2's assets.  It's not
surprising that MS and IBM can agree on things that are
designed to keep the balance of power on the side of
the system vendors.  UDDI and SOAP do not threaten the
hegemony of Perspective 1.  Quite the contrary, in
fact.  

When considering these system-vendor-originated
proposals, it's important not only to examine what's
there, but also to figure out *what's missing* -- what
would be there if the information owners were designing
these things, but isn't, because they're not.

-- Steve

Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
srn@c...

voice: +1 972 359 8160
fax:   +1 972 359 0270

1527 Northaven Drive
Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA

• References:
  • RE: Traditional RPC
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Why REST
• Previous by thread: RE: Traditional RPC
• Next by thread: Re: Traditional RPC
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread