RE: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6

Weelllll ... Perhaps there is some smoother way of putting it.  Honest
to Pete, it's my impression that this is not a point of view that is
going to bring out the big guns.  Or even, perhaps, the little guns.
Sure, the grid connection is a little worrying, but surely there is a
way to put this that one can see the difference between big honkin
objects that are throwing events all over the place -- and a little
innocent grid?

Seems to me that all the sheriffs are out the the back 40 doing
something else.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Champion, Mike
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 8:35 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6



 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 9:13 PM
> To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6
> 
> 
> Who's that guy who used to work for DevelopMentor and now
> works for Microsoft?  The guy that has something of a cult 
> following?  I think that's what he's been saying, more or less.

Don Box.  I'd agree that he seems to be tooting the SOA horn now.

>
> 
> And again I remind you -- is this a lamb?  Might as well go
> for the sheep, eh?

I dunno. Some people do have control of both sides and enough bandwidth
(or small enough performance requirements) to get SOAP RPC to work.  At
the extreme, sure: an OO system with a complex shared typesystem  and
objects that require 20 method calls to initialize properly has no
business being implemented with web serivce technologies.  There are a
bunch of other cases where the objects can be initialized with a call or
two but COM/CORBA aren't a viable option for some reason; those are
reasonable use cases for RPC-ish SOAP/WSDL AFAIK.

I'd prefer not to be hanged at all, and don't see any reason to annoy
the sheriff enough to have him trump up charges :-)

Received on Monday, 12 January 2004 21:45:11 UTC