W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-state@w3.org > June 2003

RE: Debating on the usefulness of a standard description for stateful service instances applicability, creation, communication, ...

From: Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 06:47:44 -0700
To: "'Jim Webber'" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>, <marco.adragna@kellogg.ox.ac.uk>, <public-ws-desc-state@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01e001c335a0$3fbf3180$8201a8c0@amer.cisco.com>

I know it is off topic, yet (I will keep it short) ... Comments embedded
...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-state-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-desc-state-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim Webber
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:12 AM
> To: marco.adragna@kellogg.ox.ac.uk; public-ws-desc-state@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Debating on the usefulness of a standard 
> description for stateful service instances applicability, 
> creation, communication, ...
<snip/>
> 
> As for impedance mismatch, SOA and OO are different, and so of course
you
> have a mismatch. The skill is in transforming one to the other, not
bodging
<KS>
	To augment Jim's points, IMHO, SOA and OO are at different
"layers" of abstraction - while services manifest the business
interfaces, the objects manifest the underlying implementations. An
instance of a service could very well be a set of objects. 

	One of the cardinal sins of SOA (especially Web Services) is to
expose an object graph as a set of (web) services directly. This creates
the illusion that OO == SOA. The "RPC" mode of SOAP doesn't help either
:o(
</KS>

Cheers

-k.
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 09:48:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 March 2005 11:17:41 GMT