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

Re: WSA constraints

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 00:39:43 +0600
Message-ID: <00d001c26330$97fbd940$f500a8c0@lankabook2>
To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Cc: <mark.baker@sympatico.ca>

"Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net> writes:
> I agree with Dave that XML messaging is a constraint. Web services
> participants communicate by passing XML messages. If two applications
> communicate using anything other than XML messages, then they are not
> the Web services architecture.
> Anne

I disagree.

If two service use WSDL to find out what can be sent/received and
then talk to each other and serialize the messages using something
other than XML 1.0 then its not Web services??

What if I've done a mapping of the SOAP infoset to IIOP (yes I
believe that's possible at least for the most part - let's
say my service is using just that "most part"). Then am I no longer
doing Web services because I chose to serialize the SOAP infoset
using a non-XML format?

I'm confused by the strong need to stick to XML as a constraint.
To me, Web services are about service-oriented architectures and
that does not necessarily imply the use of XML on the wire. Of
course WSDL etc. use XML but that's because that's a convenient
mechanism to define a easily machine processable language. If
WSDL were written using a more traditional C/Java/C# like
syntax then is that taboo too??

XML is just one (really good) technology. However, its not the
only technology available to serialize some typed information.

Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 14:41:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:59 UTC