W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Issue 5; GET vs GetLastTradePrice

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 17:11:17 -0500
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <002e01c2b2ab$df52ea20$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: Issue 5; GET vs GetLastTradePrice

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Walden Mathews [mailto:waldenm@optonline.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 10:37 AM
> > To: Newcomer, Eric
> > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Issue 5; GET vs GetLastTradePrice
> >
> > I'd like to get clearer on what that middle ground is.  Last
> > summer I got involved in a project that
> > had already decided to use XML in a "document" mode as
> > opposed to a "RPC" mode, but the
> > distinction was only skin deep, at least according to my
> > analysis.
> I sometimes suspect that too.  As someone said in one of these recent
> threads, it would be hard to distinguish an instance of one from the other
> using a protocol analyzer.

I wasn't saying that, nor do I quite believe it.  What I was saying was that
when someone says "document mode" it could mean almost anything to
almost anyone.  In this case it meant that the developers were designing
messaging protocol directly, whereas if they had bought into an RPC code
generating package, the package would have done it for them.

On the second phase of the project, we abandoned this approach altogether
and went with one in which the xml vocabulary was a business vocabulary,
not a messaging one.  That's one reasonable interpretation of "document
mode", but I know people who mean something else specific about the
makeup of the xml when they use that phrase.

My point, once again, is that "document mode" is not sufficient guidance for
a development team, especially one not well versed in distributed systems


>The distinctions do seem more at the design
> pattern level-- do you CONCEIVE of the message as a method invocation with
> arguments that gets directly mapped onto a procedure call of some sort, or
> do you conceive of it as a business document to be acted on by some
> intermediate software that interprets the data and indirectly invokes the
> back-end software.

I think you can tell whether an xml vocabulary is pure business model or
a mixture of business model and messaging.

Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 17:12:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:01 UTC