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

RE: REST, Conversations and Reliability

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:36:57 -0700
Message-ID: <C513FB68F8200244B570543EF3FC653708AE35FC@MAIL1.stc.com>
To: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

Well, the latter (which might also require the former).

Everybody agrees that message-oriented SOAP is the way to go, still the most
likely way people would do that today is by using a lipstick-pig approach.
So there is something wrong if the preferred use of SOAP requires, in
practice, a proprietary framework.

Systems like MQSeries are usually mentioned as having better QoS than
provided by open standards, so that if I want to realistically use SOAP
messaging for business I have to rely on one of those proprietary
frameworks. Is that true? If not, what is the recommended way to proceed?
The SOAP and WSDL specs don't say anything specific about this, so it seems
to me that WSA would be a good place for looking into that.

Ugo

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 11:42 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: REST, Conversations and Reliability





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 2:13 PM
> To: 'David Orchard'; edwink@collaxa.com; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: REST, Conversations and Reliability
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it would be great if WSA could look into this.

Look into what?  Non-XML serializations of the InfoSet?


Or the issue of whether SOAP over proprietary MOM systems
is "lipstick on a pig?"
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2002 16:37:29 GMT

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