W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2003

RE : Proposal for Describing Web Services that Refer to Other Web Services: R085

From: JP Moresmau <jean-philippe.moresmau@soamai.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:42:21 +0200
To: "'Amelia A. Lewis'" <alewis@tibco.com>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005201c30d94$60554df0$8300a8c0@MTPJPMORESMAU>

You're talking about a Java API, addressable though JNDI, another Java API,
and you mention Java factories to create objects and stuff. Can we still
consider that as a Web Service?? That the Apache WSIF framework, for
example, allows to specify EJB bindings in WSDL and to transparently connect
to them doesn't say that EJB access over IIOP using Java serialization is a
Web Services architecture...

He he he

JP

 	 	 Soamaï	
 	 Jean-Philippe Moresmau - CTO-Directeur Technique	
 	 1025 rue Henri Becquerel - 34036 Montpellier cedex 01 - FRANCE	
 	 Tél : +33(0)4 99 52 65 43 - Mob : +33(0)6 72 75 21 27	
 	 Std : +33 (0)1 46 08 69 00 - Fax : +33(0) 67 65 56 20	
 	 www.soamai.com	


-----Message d'origine-----
De : www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] De la
part de Amelia A. Lewis
Envoyé : lundi 28 avril 2003 16:09
À : Mark Baker
Cc : www-ws-desc@w3.org
Objet : Re: Proposal for Describing Web Services that Refer to Other Web
Services: R085



On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 23:19:15 -0400
Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:
> They can identify any thing, if that's what you mean by "universal".

TimBL's original proposal was for "universal" identifiers/locators.  The
IETF rejected that term, replacing it with "uniform".  They are uniform;
they are not universal.

> If you mean that URIs aren't universal in the sense that it isn't 
> practical to turn any addressing scheme into them, I can't disprove 
> that, but I can challenge you to provide an example where it would not 
> be practical.

I already have done so.  Please examine J2EE services, particularly JMS, in
their current state, and in at least two implementations.  At the moment,
there is no common URI scheme.  I can write a service and make a scheme up,
but so can anyone else who wants to.  As URIs, one-offs are useless; the
whole point of them is that they are uniform across equivalent services.

It is perfectly straightforward to retrieve JMS destinations using the
standardized address retrieval semantics defined for JMS, and it is quite
straightforward to represent that as a complex type in XML.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 10:47:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:23 GMT