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

RE: Normative constraints on the WSA

From: Thompson, Bryan B. <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 10:30:27 -0400
Message-Id: <D24D16A6707B0A4B9EF084299CE99B390195B415@mcl-its-exs02.mail.saic.com>
To: "'Anne Thomas Manes '" <anne@manes.net>, "'Newcomer, Eric '" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>, "'Walden Mathews '" <waldenm@optonline.net>, "'Baker, Mark '" <distobj@acm.org>, "'Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) '" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Cc: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

Anne Thomas Manes wrote:

> At the same time, I think that it would be an excellent endeavor to work
on 
> the next generation of Web services -- a RESTful version of Web services. 
> I'd love to see another Working Group started to focus on this work. I
just 
> don't think that this work should interfere any further with the immediate

> work at hand. 

I am amenable to this approach if the charters for the working groups could
be scoped appropriately.  I can see many reasons why this would be a good
path forward for both SOAP/RPC architecture and REST-ful web services.  The
tension lies with the perspective that web services must be one or the
other, while both are valid approaches and have very different strengths.

-bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Thomas Manes
To: Newcomer, Eric; Walden Mathews; Baker, Mark; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Sent: 5/18/2003 9:26 AM
Subject: RE: Normative constraints on the WSA


Eric,

For the most part I agree with you. The world has adopted the current
generation of Web services (very RPC-oriented, and not very RESTful) for
a
reason. It's simple, familiar, vendor-neutral, and it has wide support
by
all vendors. It helps people integrate systems better than any previous
RPC-oriented middlware technology.

This current generation of Web services technology uses (abuses?) the
Web.
But it is NOT the Web. It is RPC-oriented middleware -- it is
service-centric rather than resource-centric. It's about verbs rather
than
nouns. If I recall correctly, the folks that originally came together in
April 2001 to talk about Web services and that recommended the immediate
formation of this group weren't even thinking about REST at the time. We
were thinking about RPC. And we wanted to define an over-arching
architecture for this type of middleware.

I think that's what this group should focus on.

At the same time, I think that it would be an excellent endeavor to work
on
the next generation of Web services -- a RESTful version of Web
services.
I'd love to see another Working Group started to focus on this work. I
just
don't think that this work should interfere any further with the
immediate
work at hand.

It's been more than 2 years since we came together and agreed that
defining
the WSA was a top priority. Eric is correct that the W3C is in danger of
losing its relevance in Web services. It just takes too long for
anything to
happen in this venue.

And one more point regarding Eric's predicted response from the RESTful
folks:
> I know exactly what the "Web heads" (sorry Spidey!) are going to
> say:  The Web is a commercial and marketplace success.  Sure it
> is.  It's great for publishing, academic research, and a certain
> amount of retail commerce.  But that does not mean it is also
> going to succeed at Web services.  Almost by definition it is
> not, since it hasn't.

Most of the retail commerce success is based on CGI/ASP/JSP -- which
very
definitely tunnels method calls through HTTP. It isn't RESTful.

Regards,
Anne


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Newcomer, Eric
> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 1:50 PM
> To: Walden Mathews; Baker, Mark; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Normative constraints on the WSA
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> The trouble with all this, as we've said many times, is that Web
> services are not the same as the Web.  They are not indented for
> the same usage patterns, developer audience, or business model.
>
> Let's especially remember that technology by itself is useless -
> it is only useful within the context of its application.  Web
> services are not intended to solve the same problem as the Web,
> and businesses are not interested in academic exercises like REST
> and other characterizations of what is "good" vs "bad"
> architecture, what is "ancient" vs "modern" etc.
>
> I doubt Web services are progress.  But I don't think that's bad,
> since they have significant application in business.  The Web does
not.
>
> Let's please forget about REST, the Semantic Web, and the other
> academic exercises and focus on solving problems for business.
>
> The W3C is already in danger of losing its relevance in Web
> services, but perhaps that's self evident by the traffic on this
> list, which grows increasingly "REST-ish" and less and less
> oriented toward improving Web services as they have been accepted.
>
> Criticisms founded on purely technical grounds or on the subject
> of "architectural purity" completely miss the point of what we
> need to do.  At the end of the day, marketplace acceptance is the
> only measure that matters for a standard, and the current Web
> services have been widely adopted.
>
> None of these purity arguments are going to change commercial
> reality.  But they can take us further and further away from
> being relevant.
>
> I know exactly what the "Web heads" (sorry Spidey!) are going to
> say:  The Web is a commercial and marketplace success.  Sure it
> is.  It's great for publishing, academic research, and a certain
> amount of retail commerce.  But that does not mean it is also
> going to succeed at Web services.  Almost by definition it is
> not, since it hasn't.
>
> So - anyone out there on this list still want to work on Web
> services?  Or should we just give in and say that Web services
> are the same as the Web?
>
> Eric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Walden Mathews [mailto:waldenm@optonline.net]
> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 10:21 AM
> To: Baker, Mark; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Normative constraints on the WSA
>
>
>
> Mark,
>
> I pretty much agree with you, except that I don't think it's
> so much about never relaxing constraints as it is about preserving
> most of what succeeds, and allowing slow evolution.  You
> could break the system just as easily by adding the wrong constraints
> as you could by relaxing, judiciously, some existing ones.
>
> --Walden
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
> To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
> Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 9:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Normative constraints on the WSA
>
>
> >
> > On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 03:39:46AM -0500, Cutler, Roger
(RogerCutler)
> wrote:
> > > I don't think that anything in the architecture of the Web,
> at least as
> > > I see it articulated by the TAG or the charter of the WSAWG, says
or
> > > implies that the Web must remain the same forever.  As I've stated
it,
> > > this may seem like a tautology or perhaps as a personally
> intended slur
> > > (not intended this way at all), but I'm beginning to think that in
> > > essence this, or something like it, is a point of real difference
of
> > > opinion and approach.
> >
> > Not at all.  But you don't see improvement by relaxing constraints
and
> > removing the very properties that got us to where we are today.  You
> > see improvement by *adding* new constraints.  I welcome all
innovation
> > on the Web that does just that (see KnowNow), and I reject all
> > "innovation" to the contrary; it isn't innovation, it's taking us
back
> > between 20 and 30 years in the evolution of large scale distributed
> > systems.
> >
> > MB
> > --
> > Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.
http://www.markbaker.ca
> > Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation &
analysis
> >   Actively seeking contract work or employment
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Sunday, 18 May 2003 10:30:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:19 GMT