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

Couple of relevant papers FWIW

From: Damodaran, Suresh <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:50:33 -0500
Message-ID: <23AB6ECCD0FD064BAD472FA37FF80A781F4AFA@scidalmsg01.csg.stercomm.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org

An analysis of BPEL (might help to position it with BPSS)

Comparison of BPML & BPEL



Sterling Commerce (on loan to RosettaNet)

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@prescod.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 2:55 PM
To: Ugo Corda
Cc: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Article on WS architecture and best practice ... may be of
in terest

Ugo Corda wrote:
>>this methodology
>>defeats the whole purpose of Web services, which is to hide the
>>implementation of a service completely behind an XML-based interface. 
>>VS.NET generates the interface from the implementation.
> I don't see the conflict here. For any user of the Web service the
> interface does exactly that: hides the original implementation.
> If the point made by the article is that Web services interfaces should be
> defined first and implementations should follow, this is evidently not
> possible in all those cases where Web services are used as wrappers for
> legacy implementations.

I think that the point is that the web service's interfaces should be 
designed to make it into a good network application which could be 
radically different than the appropriate interfaces for a LAN-based or 
desktop software component for all of the reasons described in the 
"Waldo paper" and elsewhere. If you are just letting software "generate" 
your network interface from a pre-existing interface then the chances it 
is optimal as a network application is tiny.

Received on Thursday, 3 October 2002 16:51:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:00 UTC