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

RE: WSA constraints

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:27:14 -0400
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Cc: <mark.baker@sympatico.ca>

Okay - I'm willing to be flexible. I would say that for the functional
architecture, the constraint is that the messaging system must be
independent of language, platform, and communication protocol. The actual
data on the wire is determined by the description mechanism. The description
mechanism must be independent of language and platform, and that it must be
machine readable. For the reference architecture, we recommend using XML on
the wire, a SOAP envelope, and WSDL.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 2:40 PM
> To: Anne Thomas Manes; Mark Baker; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Cc: mark.baker@sympatico.ca
> Subject: Re: WSA constraints
> "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
> using
> > 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.
> Sanjiva.
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 16:26:43 UTC

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