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

Re: Magic

From: Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 09:22:28 -0700
Cc: "Baker, Mark" <distobj@acm.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
To: "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
Message-Id: <1575590A-8A16-11D7-88D2-000393A3327C@fla.fujitsu.com>

+1

Plus the comment that the general's likeliest mistake is to fight the 
last war.

On Sunday, May 18, 2003, at 05:27  AM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:

>
> Mark,
>
> This is a very interesting response.  You do not allow for the 
> possibility that I (and presumably others) might understand but still 
> disagree.
>
> The lack of recognition for opposite viewpoints is usually a 
> disqualifier for participation in a public forum such as this, and I 
> strongly urge you to either admit the possibility or withdraw.
>
> For the record, I completely agree that the Web is an historical 
> success, and that REST as an architectural description is very well 
> suited to the Web.  I think uniform interfaces work well for the Web, 
> and I do not think the Web is either trivial or crude.
>
> But I also do not think that REST is an appropriate architecture for 
> Web services.  The problem space of program to program communications 
> is sufficiently different from the problem space of hypertext 
> publishing to require a different approach.  I do not agree that 
> tunneling is evil, and I do not agree that WSDL interfaces are 
> limiting, because I do not agree that WSDL is used in the same way as 
> REST, or should be.
>
> The purpose of my email was to highlight the significance of factors 
> outside of technical and architectural purity.  Part of the argument I 
> often hear about REST is that it has succeeded, therefore it's good.  
> In the case of SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI the same is true, and that 
> viewpoint needs to be acknowledged.  Web services products do not 
> implement REST, they implement SOAP, WSDL, UDDI, and a number of other 
> specifications that are starting to emerge.
>
> We, as a working group, have the choice of accepting the fact and 
> working toward the goal of defining an architecture that embraces them 
> and the concepts they embody, or risking irrelevance.
>
> Eric
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Baker, Mark
> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 2:49 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Magic
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 01:50:06PM -0400, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
>> Let's please forget about REST, the Semantic Web, and the other 
>> academic exercises and focus on solving problems for business.
>
> Just because you don't understand it, please don't denigrate it.
>
> The Web generates more business value every hour of every day, than
> SOA-style systems (combined) ever have or ever will.  Unconstrained
> interfaces are simply not suitable for the Internet.  Period.  End of
> story.  The empiricial evidence backs me up on this too.  The fact that
> lots of otherwise intelligent people (whose only mistake is they just
> haven't done their homework on Internet scale systems) don't understand
> that, does not all of a sudden make it so.
>
> I *understand* that the Web looks like some trivial and cutesy
> human-driven system that enables crude UIs to be deployed in a thin-
> client fashion.  6 years ago, I thought the same thing too, and was a
> big fan of SOAs.  But it is *SO* much more, and I *WISH* people would
> just try to make a *SMALL* effort to understand that without getting 
> all
> defensive and nervous about the prospect that they're mistaken; heck,
> if you are wrong, you're in good company 8-)  When I started studying
> the Web in 96/97, I wasn't expecting to learn what the Web was; I was
> just trying to find out what made it so successful so that I could
> incorporate that into my work (with CORBA, at the time).  I was as
> surprised as anybody to learn what I did; that not only did it have 
> some
> neat things to offer CORBA, it removed the need for CORBA altogether.  
> I
> remember being absolutely stunned for about a week in May of '98 after 
> a
> talk with Roy in which I finally "got it"; I hardly slept.
>
> Anyhow, excuse me for venting.  I just couldn't let that tripe pass by
> without responding.
>
> *PLEASE*, everyone, try to make an effort to understand it before you
> dismiss it.  If you understand it, but still want to dismiss it, then
> go nuts. 8-)
>
> MB
>
>
Received on Monday, 19 May 2003 12:23:03 GMT

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