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

RE: Binding

From: Abbie Barbir <abbieb@nortelnetworks.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:45:20 -0500
Message-ID: <87609AFB433BD5118D5E0002A52CD75404858AEE@zcard0k6.ca.nortel.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
well,
from your example, is the inceremental fibonacci needed for the overall
solution, or each number is needed for a solution or a particular.

the point is is that u still need to know the context (whether inceremental
or not).

I guess, we are in agreement (??).

abbie


> -----Original Message-----
> From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:03 PM
> To: Barbir, Abbie [CAR:1A00:EXCH]
> Cc: Walden Mathews; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Binding
> 
> 
> Simple example of a process that yields context 
> incrementally: a page that 
> gives you the next number in a fibonacci sequence each time 
> you load it. 
> Each step in the process (each GET) yields a little more 
> information which 
> builds context.
> 
> In reality, none of this stuff can be cleanly separated.  All 
> we can do is 
> attempt to make somewhat useful abstractions of reality.  
> Disagreement is 
> endemic in the process.  So is getting it wrong and having to try it 
> again.
> 
> - 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
> 
> www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 01/07/2003 08:19:51 AM:
> 
> > Walden,
> >  
> > It  would help if u give an example of what do u mean by
> > "a coordination process yields context incrementally" ?
> >  
> > PS:  Seperation may not be 100% clean, but it does not hurt to
> > attempt it, knowing  that it will not be perfected either.
> >  
> > thanks
> > abbie
> >  
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Walden Mathews  [mailto:waldenm@optonline.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003  11:14 AM
> > To: Barbir, Abbie [CAR:1A00:EXCH]; James M Snell;  
> www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Binding
> > 
> > Okay, 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.
> >  
> > Walden
> >  
> >  
> > ----- 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
> > 
> > James,
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > it is about time this point is made by example.
> > 
> > abbie
> > 
> > > -----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 12:46:13 GMT

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