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

RE: Article on WS architecture and best practice ... may be of in terest

From: Hao He <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:14:51 +1000
Message-ID: <686B9E7C8AA57A45AE8DDCC5A81596AB046AE09F@sydthqems01.INT.TISA.COM.AU>
To: "'Paul Prescod'" <paul@prescod.net>, Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Cc: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Big +1.


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@prescod.net]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 5:55 AM
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 Tuesday, 8 October 2002 01:16:06 UTC

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