W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > August 2002

RE: REST, Conversations and Reliability

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 15:48:34 -0700
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "'Paul Prescod'" <paul@prescod.net>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <010b01c23d9b$6854ac40$140ba8c0@beasys.com>

I understand the point you are making, which is about the scalability of
reliability solutions that span trust domains.

But I'll decline the challenge to show proof of something that I'm hoping
we're going to create.  I understand that you think we've tried and failed,
but I think we have some new technology - like the web URIs, XML, SOAP,
WSDL - as well as past experience that will help us.  And I think we can use
these technologies in ways that loosely couple reliability to application
semantics.

I do appreciate that you acknowledge the point that there is a choice to be
made between loosely coupling the reliability logic to the application logic
or tightly coupling them, and that you are in favour of tightly coupling
them.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 1:50 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: 'Paul Prescod'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: REST, Conversations and Reliability
>
>
>
> Dave,
>
> I'll let Paul respond in detail, but I wanted to point something out;
>
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 11:09:56AM -0700, David Orchard wrote:
> > 2. In general, the problem with your proposal is that it
> combines the logic
> > of the application with the logic of the reliability
> (message ordering) and
> > conversations.  In my view, we want a separation of
> concerns, specifically
> > separating the application from the reliability protocol.
>
> You claimed that MQSeries is "incredibly scalable", yet I suggest that
> you won't find a single well-deployed system on the Internet
> which uses
> a reliable messaging layer for its reliability needs.  And that's not
> for a lack of solutions; there have been *many* attempts at deploying
> "reliable UDP" and other reliable messaging solutions at a layer below
> the application layer, and all have failed.  In every case I can think
> of on the Internet, application semantics include reliability
> semantics.
>
> So I really think that the burden on proof is on you to show
> decoupling
> "application logic" from "reliability logic" will work on the
> Internet.
>
> Thanks.
>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2002 18:50:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:03 GMT