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

Re: TAG discussion of WS visibility issue

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:34:01 -0400
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030715083401.I4241@www.markbaker.ca>

On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 11:34:30PM -0600, Champion, Mike wrote:
> [link to a March 1992 post by Fielding used to support this ... BTW, I don't
> think it's useful to quote Fielding's rants against SOAP from before the
> XMLP WG accepted the TAG's advice and added support for the web method
> feature.  SOAP 1.2 and the current WSA draft has a very different
> conceptualization of Web services than the SOAP 1.1 Web-RPC idea that he was
> demolishing back in the Spring of 1992.]

I've had these discussions with Roy since 1998.  I understand his
position *very* well; not perfectly, but better than most.  He believes
what he wrote there independent of SOAP.  I do too.

> If one thinks of SOAP as an "object access protocol" then your point is well
> taken.  If one thinks of SOAP as an XML header/extension format with a well
> defined processing model that helps reduce the impedance mismatches between
> different object systems, protocols, programming languages, etc., then I
> think Fielding is agreeing that SOAP and XML are the "universal standards"
> that can provide visibility.  

I've already agreed that SOAP and XML provide visibility, and have said
here on several occasions.  They just don't provide enough, IMO.

I know you agree that visibility is important for firewalls, so we must
also agree that there is some amount of visibility below which messages
will not get past firewalls.  Empirical evidence gleaned from the
existing Internet suggests that using a generic interface (not
necessarily a uniform one) is necessary for use at Internet scale.
Right?  If you disagree, can you name a single well-deployed system on
the Internet today that isn't built with one?  This is a precarious
position I'm taking, if all it takes is a single example to prove me
wrong, no?  So name one, and I'll write an entry on my blog praising
the value of object-specific interfaces, and will never speak of this
issue again.

> The main point I was trying to make in reproducing the quote is the idea
> that this is all about engineering tradeoffs

Of course.

> and not incommensurable
> paradigms.

If an engineering tradeoff is made that prevents requirements from being
met, then the system can fail if those requirements were sufficiently
important to the success of that system.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2003 08:27:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:21 GMT