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

Re: Binding

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 11:14:06 -0500
To: Abbie Barbir <abbieb@nortelnetworks.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@us.ibm.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <004f01c2b667$cde1a8c0$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>
RE: BindingOkay, but what about cases in which a coordination process yields
context incrementally?  Are you sure coordination and context can
really be separated out so cleanly?  I would call the example given a
case of "degenerate coordination" at best, and not generally what's
meant by coordination in this thread.  But I could be reading in meaning
that's not intended.


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Abbie Barbir 
  To: James M Snell ; www-ws-arch@w3.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 10:17 AM
  Subject: RE: Binding



  it is about time this point is made by example. 


  > -----Original Message----- 
  > From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com] 
  > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:29 PM 
  > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org 
  > Subject: Re: Binding 
  > Coordination without Context is useless. 
  > http://www.snellspace.com/blog/2j43h5kmne54324u23kjl234sdf878.html 
  > - James Snell 
  >      IBM Emerging Technologies 
  >      jasnell@us.ibm.com 
  >      (559) 587-1233 (office) 
  >      (700) 544-9035 (t/l) 
  >      Programming Web Services With SOAP 
  >          O'Reilly & Associates, ISBN 0596000952 
  >      Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. 
  >      Do not be terrified, do not be discouraged, for the Lord your 
  >      God will be with you whereever you go.    - Joshua 1:9 
  > Miles Sabin <miles@milessabin.com> 
  > Sent by: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
  > 01/06/2003 01:54 PM 
  > To 
  > www-ws-arch@w3.org 
  > cc 
  > bcc 
  > Subject 
  > Re: Binding 
  > Mark Baker wrote, 
  > > On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 04:54:21PM +0000, Miles Sabin wrote: 
  > > > And the RESTless version could work just as well if we 
  > substituted 
  > > > "9ajp23q9rj89aweruwer" for "getLastSharePriceOfIBM". What allows 
  > > > this, in *both* cases is the _prior_ coordination between 
  > the client 
  > > > which has, 
  > > 
  > > Wrong. 
  > > 
  > > I think it's funny (in an unfortunate way) that this benefit is so 
  > > easily taken for granted.  It's called a *coordination* 
  > language for a 
  > > reason, ya know. 8-/ 
  > > 
  > >   http://www.markbaker.ca/9ajp23q9rj89aweruwer 
  > > 
  > > Quick, before you type that into a browser window, tell me 
  > everything 
  > > you and your browser know about it and what I'm trying to 
  > communicate 
  > > to you by putting it in this email message. 
  > Well now ... you're giving David all the ammunition he needs 
  > for his part of the argument. 
  > I know a fair bit about that URI a priori. I'm reasonably 
  > confident that there's something on the end of it. Also that 
  > any representation I get back will probably have a text/html 
  > MIME type. It's textual content will be in English, and 
  > relate to this thread in some way or another. Either that or 
  > it's a rude message ;-) 
  > I have that confidence because it's not _just_ a random 
  > string of characters. It's a URI posted in a mail to this 
  > list by a person, with a purpose, for human consumption. It 
  > has a context, a context which is shared by its publisher 
  > (you) and its consumers (the rest of us). 
  > I also have a reason for _wanting_ to see what's on the end 
  > of it: I'm just intrigued to see what's there. That's why 
  > I'll follow the link when I've sent this mail. 
  > But what if the consumer isn't a person? In general a machine 
  > won't know anything about that URI, it can't even guess. It 
  > won't autonomously follow it any more than it would follow 
  > any other link composed of a random string of characters. 
  > Unless, that is, it's a spider, in which case it'll blindly 
  > follow any link it's given ... but this is a list for Web 
  > _Services_ Architecture, not Web _Spider_ Architecture, and 
  > presumably we're all interested in getting machines to 
  > something a little more sophisticated than wandering blindly. 
  > If we want to do that, then we have to provide the machines 
  > with something analogous to the shared context that makes 
  > link following make sense in the human case. Machines being 
  > the dumb lumps of tin they are, that has to be a priori 
  > shared knowledge and semantics encoded some how or other. 
  > The SOAP/WSDL way of doing that is to encode knowledge in the 
  > communicating endpoints. The encoding is mostly ... code: and 
  > the SOAP/WSDL community has given developers a programming 
  > model, idioms and toolkits to help do the job of writing it. 
  > Another way of doing it might be to encode a significant 
  > portion of that knowledge in the structure of the network 
  > that the machines are traversing when they follow links. In a 
  > way, that's putting spiders to work by designing the network 
  > they wander over in such a way that their wandering produces 
  > a useful result. That this can be done is an insight from the 
  > mobile calculii people, and, IMO, it's the echoes of this in 
  > REST which makes REST interesting. 
  > But note ... even if the machines are dumber in this case, 
  > the network has to be smarter. Qualitatively speaking, the 
  > same work that goes into the design and implementation of 
  > RPC-style clients and servers would have to go into the 
  > design and implementation of a REST-style network. And it's 
  > harder work, because the programming model and idioms are unfamiliar. 
  > All that work has to be done up front just as in the 
  > SOAP/WSDL case, it doesn't come for free, and it isn't all 
  > there in RFCs 2396 and 2616 just waiting to be found. 
  > Cheers, 
  > Miles 
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2003 11:14:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:02 UTC