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

RE: REST, Conversations and Reliability

From: Edwin Khodabakchian <edwink@collaxa.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 00:01:05 -0700
To: "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000401c23de0$35d40050$cddffea9@collaxa.net>

+1. Well said Dave.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 8:58 PM
> To: 'Mark Baker'
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: REST, Conversations and Reliability
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree with the quote.  But the quote was used for 
> different reasons.  In the past, people tried to make 
> distributed systems by "extending" the wire, which is totally 
> broken.  You can't hide the latency/unreliability/etc. of the 
> underlying protocols when building distributed applications.
> 
> But in my world, the Web Service *knows* that it is 
> distributed.  So therefore the application AND the 
> reliability solution both are fully aware of being remote.  
> You are confusing web services that are message-based (which 
> I prefer) with RPC-style (where it looks like a remote 
> procedure call).  That's yet another reason why many of us 
> prefer asynchronous message-based solutions, because it 
> acknowledges the distributed nature of the applications.  You 
> believe that method names in messages=rpc, whereas I equate 
> synchronous/hide-the-remote-aspect=rpc.  Interestingly, I 
> think that you equate the containment of "P" in RPC to be 
> sufficient to characterize as RPC, whereas I equate the "R" 
> (that is making a local procedure call look
> remote) and the "C" (synchronous blocking call) to be RPC.  
> Perhaps another way of looking at it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 6:55 PM
> > To: David Orchard
> > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: REST, Conversations and Reliability
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 03:48:34PM -0700, David Orchard wrote:
> > > 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 just wanted to point out that some aspect of a 
> reliability solution 
> > may be reusable in a loosely coupled manner.  For example, message 
> > ids. But a complete SOAP based reliability solution cannot be.
> >
> > BTW, I just found this, a better description of the 
> infamous "A Note 
> > on Distributed Computing" paper than the paper itself 
> provides (by Jim
> > Waldo, of course);
> >
> >   "In particular, we argued that distributed infrastructures must
> >    present a model of partial failure to the programmer, 
> since only at
> >    the application level can such failure be dealt with; must deal 
> > with
> >    concurrency issues, rather than leaving them to the 
> infrastructure;
> >    and must at the application level realize what parts of 
> the program
> >    are local and what parts are at least potentially remote."
> >
> > http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:CbFghclKzoMC:research.sun
> .com/features/tenyears/volcd/papers/intros/I5Waldo.pdf+waldo+n
> ote+on+distrib
> uted+computing&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
> 
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2002 03:01:18 GMT

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