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

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

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:19:23 -0400
To: "JP Moresmau" <jean-philippe.moresmau@soamai.com>, "'Amelia A. Lewis'" <alewis@tibco.com>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ECEDLFLFGIEENIPIEJJPAEMLEBAA.anne@manes.net>

Question: How does a .NET client access said EJB service? Although WSIF
turns any service into the equivalent of a Web service for Java clients,
that doesn't in turn make those same services "Web services" -- because .NET
doesn't have the equivalent of WSIF. (This is the biggest issue I have with
JSR-109 -- which says that a Web service client needs to access a Web
service via JNDI. I don't think that qualifies as a Web service.)

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of JP Moresmau
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 10:42 AM
> To: 'Amelia A. Lewis'; 'Mark Baker'
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE : Proposal for Describing Web Services that Refer to Other
> Web Services: R085
>
>
>
> 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 13:18:29 GMT

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