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

RE: Late binding

From: Newcomer, Eric <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:08:01 -0400
Message-ID: <DCF6EF589A22A14F93DFB949FD8C4AB291695E@amereast-ems1.IONAGLOBAL.COM>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

>How do you know that the existing architecture of the Web can't be used
>for what Web services are trying to achieve?  Shouldn't the burden of
>proof be on Web services proponents to demonstrate this?  It concerns
>me greatly that the members of this WG seem to assume this.

Mark,

My point is that because SOAP and WSDL already exist, and are widely
adopted and implemented, whether they are "right or wrong" with respect
to Web architecture, their existence and widespread use indicates the
opposite of your assertion.  If there's a better way, the critics of the
current approach need to propose it, rather than simply criticize it.
That's what I was trying to say by "let's be practical."  

Sorry if it did not come across correctly, or if I made any mistakes in
characterizing your position.

Thanks,

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 9:09 PM
To: Newcomer, Eric
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Late binding


Eric,

On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 03:06:12PM -0400, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> Mark has been arguing against SOAP for more than two years, 

I have never once argued against SOAP.  What I have continually argued
against, is how the vast majority of people *use* SOAP.  For example,
see all the services at webmethods.net, or all the examples in our usage
scenarios.  None of those have anything to do with the Web (hopefully
addressing Dan's comment will help the WG realize this).

>as I recall, and yet the spec has gone ahead anyway.  I point this out
because we need to take into account what exists today as much, if not
more, than we need to think about what should exist.
> 
> To quote my colleague Oisin Hurley: in theory, practice and theory are
the same, but in practice they are not.  Let's not get caught up too
much in theory.

What theory?  I'm talking about the architectural principles behind the
most widely deployed application on the Internet, the Web.  There's
nothing theoretical about running code.

My idea of theoretical is "OMA on the Internet".  People have tried to
deploy CORBA on the Internet for years, but it never took off.

> In other words, just because Web architecture works well for what it's
used for today, doesn't mean it will work well for Web services.  Let's
please focus on what exists today with repect to Web services (I mean
can we all please at least agree to confine the debate to what's already
in widespread use and how it might best evolve) and focus on the use
cases for Web services (and debate how, if at all, principles of Web
architecture as articulated by REST might apply to those use cases).

How do you know that the existing architecture of the Web can't be used
for what Web services are trying to achieve?  Shouldn't the burden of
proof be on Web services proponents to demonstrate this?  It concerns
me greatly that the members of this WG seem to assume this.

MB
--
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Monday, 1 July 2002 10:08:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:01 GMT