W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2002

Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7)

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 21:36:27 -0400
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020423213627.A20289@www.markbaker.ca>
I'm so glad that Roy had the guts to speak up as he did.  I've been
saying basically the same thing in the XML Protocol WG since I joined
when it started.  I've also done my part to ensure that SOAP can be
used in a Web architecture friendly way, but given that I've only seen
two companies use it this way (my company, and KnowNow), I don't have
much hope that SOAP will see more success than CORBA did on the
Internet (read; "little to none").

On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 04:14:49PM -0700, David Orchard wrote:
> The reason that SOAP remains and grows at the W3C is because it and related
> specifications are heavy and responsible users of web machinery,

This is demonstrably not true; they are not responsible users, because
they fail to work within the constraints imposed by the architecture
(as commonly used).

Web architecture is a *very* difficult thing to understand.  For most
people whose exposure to distributed systems has been limited to RPC and
messaging, it is unlike both, and so it's no surprise at all that so
many people have gravitated to Web services; they're familiar.

IMO, the closest "popular" non-Web architectural style to the Web's
would be a tuple space, such as is seen in Linda or JavaSpaces.  But
it's more general than even tuple spaces.  And obviously more
successful.

> I find it interesting that you feel comfortable being part of the TAG at the
> W3C, which was voted on by the W3C Members, but you are uncomfortable with
> Web Services as-is at the W3C, also voted on by W3C Members.  And if the Web
> Services folks don't do what you think is right, they should just all go
> somewhere else regardless of the process that got us where we are.  I'd
> observe that in the TAG elections, 3 of the 5 elected members are members of
> the SOAP WG.  I interpret this as yet another plank in the mandate that web
> services at the W3C is important to the membership.

Without a doubt, Web services are important to the membership.  Nobody
would argue with that.  The question being asked is, are Web services
important to the Web?  Do they help lead the Web to its full potential?
Roy, myself, and everybody else I've talked to who understands Web
architecture, agrees that they don't.

But let me be clear about my position.  The *goal* of Web services is an
admirable one, and I fully support what people are trying to accomplish
with them.  The only issue is, *HOW* do we best use the Web to achieve
these goals?  All goals *are* achievable, just in a different way than
Web services proponents advocate.  To demonstrate that this isn't an
academic exercise, as some have suggested, my company sells software
that incorporates many of my ideas in this space.

So, how do we proceed from here?  IMO, we need some Web services
proponents to have an open mind and admit that they might be wrong
(this is how I learned it).  Then we need those who do understand Web
architecture to give them a crash course.  I would be happy to help out
here.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 21:29:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:06 GMT