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

A different binding example (was RE: Binding)

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:20:58 -0700
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E404B6D809@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 3:49 PM
> To: Miles Sabin
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Binding
> 
> 

> Wrong.

Ahh, c'mon Mark ... we've asked you nicely to be more constructive and less
dogmatic about this stuff.  EXPLAIN what you mean, using the kinds of use
cases that "web services" are supposed to be good for.  

> It's called a *coordination* language for a
> reason, ya know. 8-/

OK, how about we use an example other than the wretched getLastTradePrice
chestnut, one that involves coordination?  How about automating some bit of
administrivia that we all endure, like submitting expense reports, then
getting back an approval (at some future point in time), and a funds
transfer at some later point in time.  Assume the information exchanged is
sensitive,  and that authentication, encryption, and non-repudiation should
be practiced.
Also, I'm submitting the expense report over some flaky dialup connection in
a hotel somewhere, and I need to ensure that the report is submitted exactly
once.  

I think this is something that MS touts (or implies) as illustrating the
power of the WS and XML features of Office 11, since one will presumably be
able generate and post a SOAP message with the various headers for
authentication, encryption, digital signature, and reliable messaging
directly from Excel Real Soon Now. Let's look at a RESTful approach to the
same use case and compare the two solutions.
Received on Monday, 6 January 2003 16:21:39 GMT

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