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

RE: WSDL, app protocols, URI schemes

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 13:21:59 -0700
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <06f201c2672c$b3ac2320$0100007f@beasys.com>

There are 3 things jumbled together here: 1) what is the optimal solution;
2) dispute of an assertion; 3) extrapolating and focusing on the higher
order issues.

The question isn't whether there's a solution or not.  It's about what is
the optimal solution.  I could still program in Assembler, but that's not
optimal for most of my application development, even though some people
still use it.

The original point of this debate was that you made the assertion that wsdl
files are like URI schemes.  Aside from the technical disagreement I have,
there's a potential political problem as well.  The TAG document currently
says that new URI schemes SHOULD be avoided.  I wanted to make sure that a
dispute of WSDL files are like URI schemes is on the record, particularly
for a TAG review.

The question should be about what requirements or principles are being met
by the web and by web services, and where they may be different or the same.
Accepting the different requirements/principles, one can then create
different constraints.

A good example of this is the constraint of statelessness.  Stateless makes
a lot of sense given the requirements of browser/human interactions.  And
that includes humans mailing other humans URIs.  But those requirements
don't all match up with web services.  So a stateful application design does
make sense, given certain requirements.

Roy has regularly said that you apply constraints to get behaviour out of a
system.  If you don't use the constraints, you don't get the behaviour.  The
question is always about what are desirable behaviours.

This is also why Roy has said the TAG document should talk about principles
(requirements) and then the constraints to get those.  And I think our works
should do the same.  I had wanted to start from bottom's up (soap and wsdl)
to get some pen to paper.  Once we finish that, we might want to start with
examinition of the requirements.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 8:53 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WSDL, app protocols, URI schemes
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 03:54:10PM -0700, David Orchard wrote:
> > Architectures are all about the requirements and
> optimizations one wants to
> > meet.  And one architecture doesn't fit all sizes.
>
> Of course.  But many architectural styles are complete, in that
> anything can be accomplished with them (with or without humans).
> REST is complete.
>
> Anyhow, talk is cheap.  Show me a problem that Web services claim to
> solve that the Web doesn't have a solution for.  I'll give
> you C$100 for
> each one you find, if you buy me a beer for each one you
> suggest that I
> show does have a solution on the Web (i.e. respecting all of REST's
> constraints).
>
> Deal?
>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
>
Received on Saturday, 28 September 2002 16:26:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:06 GMT