Re: Normative constraints on the WSA

Walden,

You said:

> I'm not saying you're wrong here; you've been around it way longer
> than me, but I had the strong impression that EVERYONE at this
> point felt that RPC was dead as the principal pattern of Web Services.
> Recently I asked Chris Ferris whether some WSA language ought to
> include reference to RPC, and the anwer was 'no', for example.

I'd be very interested to know when/where I said that WSA should not 
include
reference to RPC. Maybe in a specific context within the document, but not 
as a 
generalization.

Certainly, I would agree that a message- rather than procedure-oriented 
approach is superior ;-), but I don't believe that I ever suggested that 
WSA not
accomodate its application. I think that despite the short-comings of 
RPC-oriented
systems, they'll be around for a long time to come.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 05/18/2003 12:57:55 PM:

> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I'm not saying you're wrong here; you've been around it way longer
> than me, but I had the strong impression that EVERYONE at this
> point felt that RPC was dead as the principal pattern of Web Services.
> Recently I asked Chris Ferris whether some WSA language ought to
> include reference to RPC, and the anwer was 'no', for example.
> 
> Why the current interest in "service orientation", by the way?  It
> seems counter to the almost ubiquitous revolution from procedural
> programming application models to object orientation.  What service
> can a "service oriented" application provide that a "resource oriented"
> one cannot?  I would say they are both about "action", and I'd be
> interested to know whether people see one model subsuming the other,
> and if so, which model that would be.
> 
> >
> > 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.
> 
> At the level where end clients would have interest, would these two
> groups be solving different problems, or solving the same problem?
> 
> > Most of the retail commerce success is based on CGI/ASP/JSP -- which 
very
> > definitely tunnels method calls through HTTP. It isn't RESTful.
> 
> ?? JSP is a convenience for Java HTTP Servlet, which is typically
> set up to GET and POST for all operations, but can easily be configured
> so the application can also use PUT and DELETE.  Where is the
> tunnel?
> 
> Walden
>

Received on Sunday, 18 May 2003 13:26:14 UTC