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

RE: Proposed text on reliability in the web services architecture

From: Jean-Jacques Dubray <jjd@eigner.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:37:10 -0500
To: "'Cutler, Roger \(RogerCutler\)'" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>, "'bhaugen'" <linkage@interaccess.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005d01c2b81e$f4db7d30$156e050a@JJD>

PeopleSoft did it very successfully in order to be completely
web-centric. I don't see why other (maybe not all) vendors could not do
the same to leverage the benefits of XML, Web Services and Process
technologies if the  constraints*benefits becomes too high.

JJ- 
 
 

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]
On
>>Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
>>Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 3:27 PM
>>To: Jean-Jacques Dubray; bhaugen; www-ws-arch@w3.org
>>Subject: RE: Proposed text on reliability in the web services
architecture
>>
>>
>>It seems to me that the idea of constraints from XML, web services and
>>so on will "force" a massive rewrite of huge systems like SAP is ...
>>unlikely in the extreme.  If this really can be viewed as a necessary
>>consequence of what we are doing I think we'd better think twice or
>>thrice before we proceed.  But I really don't buy it, to be honest.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:jjd@eigner.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 11:49 AM
>>To: 'bhaugen'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
>>Subject: RE: Proposed text on reliability in the web services
>>architecture
>>
>>
>>
>>I agree Bob that the problems are there no matter how you are
factoring
>>them. I am just concerned when this kind of discussion focus on
>>technology hacks rather than articulating clearly the
>>entities/concepts/notions addressed by web services. The question here
>>is really one of scope. Where does the scope of web services
>>specification stops and where the "tightly coupled" stuff starts (aka
>>hacks agreed upon by two parties)?
>>
>>However, this is an interesting time in for software engineering, we
>>seem to be getting in a window of opportunity where both middleware
and
>>application architecture will be redesigned, and maybe finally
designed
>>to work together (lessening the need for mediators and adaptors for
>>instance, as well as seamlessly deal with business entities like POs
and
>>Invoices).
>>
>>I am less optimistic than you are about the ERP systems, I think that
>>the constraints of XML, web services, and process engines will force a
>>massive rewrite because of customer requirements such as "data
>>federation" or "process federation" that are more and more critical:
>>when you have 30 SAP systems like some company I know, you really face
>>these issues everyday and they are completely in the way of your
>>business (not to mention when other systems need to get at the SAP
>>data).
>>
>>JJ-
>>
>>
>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]
>>On
>>>>Behalf Of bhaugen
>>>>Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 12:14 PM
>>>>To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>>>>Subject: RE: Proposed text on reliability in the web services
>>architecture
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>JJ Dubray wrote:
>>>>> As you move the context of the discussion from an action request
to
>>>>> interactions with a (distributed) object, you are introducing a
>>>>> whole new class of problems that people have wrestling with for
>>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>>The problems are there anyway.  They are not removed by putting
>>>>dispatchers and a Web service access point in front of the
distributed
>>
>>>>objects.
>>>>
>>>>If you get rid of the dispatchers and just interact directly with
Web
>>>>resources which deal in representations of externally- facing
business
>>
>>>>objects, you just removed one or more layers of complexity, but you
>>>>still need a mediation layer between the internal object and the
>>>>external resource.
>>>>
>>>>As Peter Furniss says now and then, there is a fixed
>>>>amount of complexity involved in this problem, and
>>>>you can move the factors around and add unneccesary
>>>>factors, but you can't remove the essential ones.
>>>>(Peter says it better, but I can't remember his exact words...)
>>>>
>>>>(But not all factorings are equal...)
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 15:37:01 GMT

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