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

RE: Normative constraints on the WSA

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 23:17:16 -0400
To: "Walden Mathews" <waldenm@optonline.net>, "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ECEDLFLFGIEENIPIEJJPOEHPEEAA.anne@manes.net>

Whether you use document style or the SOAP RPC convention, (from what I've
seen) most people are using SOAP to invoke specific service operations.
That's what I mean by "RPC". Consider WSDL -- the core artifact is
<portType> which contains a set of <operations>.

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Walden Mathews
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 3:53 PM
> To: Christopher B Ferris; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Normative constraints on the WSA
>
>
>
> Christopher,
>
> My mistake.  See [1].  You said RPC was implied.
>
> Notwithstanding that, I'd been hearing mostly anti-RPC sentiment on
> this list, and today I'm seeing a resurgence of RPC interest, so I'm
> wondering what that means.
>
> Walden
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Apr/0188.html
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
> To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 1:26 PM
> Subject: 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 23:17:22 GMT

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