W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2004

RE: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:36:35 -0800
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9039588C0@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, "He, Hao" <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

Sure it does. Many recent WSDL 2.0 discussions were actually prompted by grid community requirements (just search the WSDL archive for "grid").

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 2:27 PM
> To: He, Hao; Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since Hao agrees with me, let me question the relevance of the
> grid computing example.  Does grid computing really use WSDL and SOAP?
> If not, it is out of scope.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: He, Hao [mailto:Hao.He@thomson.com.au] 
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 3:32 PM
> To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> I think Roger has summarised very well.  We are not 
> prescribing.  We are
> just telling people the consequences if they want to things in a way
> that is not intended, which can be totally ok under certain
> circumstance, for example, legacy integration.
> 
> Hao
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) 
> [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:13 AM
> To: He, Hao; Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people, myself included, think that trying to do "distributed
> objects" using Web services is a big mistake.  I seem to recall people
> saying that one of the goals of an architecture is to limit
> alternatives, or something like that.  Surely a reasonable 
> thing for an
> architecture to articulate would be something like, "You can try to
> implement objects in an SOA if you want, but that's not what 
> it's for".
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of He, Hao
> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 10:26 PM
> To: 'Champion, Mike'; 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
> Subject: RE: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6
> 
> 
> hi, Mike,
> 
> It appears to me that most people have, at least, agreed with the
> following:
> 
> 1. The architectural goal of SOA (and WS in general) is to "achieve
> loose-coupling between interacting software agents in order 
> to preserve
> the benefits of reusability, extensibility and simplicity."
> 
> 2. Two main architectural constraints of SOA: 1) A small set of simple
> and ubiquitous interfaces to all participating software agents. 2)
> Descriptive messages delivered through the interfaces.  
> 
> I, personally, would also add extensibility as part of the constraints
> but Dave O would argue it is just a best practise (however, 
> he believes
> that extensibility is important and has written a number of 
> articles on
> it). 
> 
> As to the relationships among the terms  "distributed 
> system", "service
> oriented architecture," and  "web service", I believe there 
> are just two
> main kinds, those based on OO and those based on SOA. The confusion
> comes when one tries to do "distributed objects" using Web services. 
> 
> Hao
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 8:26 AM
> To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
> Subject: RE: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: He, Hao [mailto:Hao.He@thomson.com.au]
> > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 4:20 PM
> > To: 'Champion, Mike '; 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
> > Subject: RE: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6
> 
> > I still think we need to define/explain SOA by formally listing the 
> > architectural constraints.  You sort of did it but I am strongly in 
> > favor of explicitly listing them as constraints.
> 
> That's what the previous draft tried to do.  I struggled with that
> because I'm not at all sure how many of the SOA principles are core
> definitions, which are really architectural constraints, and which are
> best practices for developing *good* SOAs (e.g. coarse granularity).
> What would you suggest as the list of constraints? 
> 
> > Can we also replace "There is considerable confusion in the 
> computing 
> > industry about the relationships among the terms 
> "distributed system",
> 
> > "service oriented architecture," and "web service", as well as to 
> > related technologies such as ..." with something more positive?
> 
> OK, propose something! I don't have a problem with changing it, but I
> think there *is* immense confusion about this stuff.  
> 
> > 
> > BTW, I predicted in my article
> > (http://webservices.xml.com/pub/a/ws/2003/09/30/soa.html)
> > that someone would soon replace the original meaning of SOAP
> > with Service Oriented Architecture Protocol. Now, you did it. :)
> 
> I was trying to remember who I stole that from!  I should have cited
> your article too, because I remember reading it and getting a 
> lot out of
> it a few months ago.  I remember thinking about stealing your 
> CD-playing
> service example when I first started wrestling with this action item,
> but decided that it was too informal for this document.
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 12 January 2004 17:36:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:24 GMT