W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > June 2001

RE: webservices stack

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 19:09:35 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D0297CD3C@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Krishna Sankar" <ksankar@cisco.com>, "Colin Adam" <colin.adam@webservices.org>, <www-ws@w3.org>

>	Putting in a six stack as Colin has done makes sense. 
>The ibm-ms-framework
>(img2) still does not solve how "common" services like 
>security can be expressed. It puts security at the wire level, 
>but security has to extend beyond the wire and into 
>description and discovery.

Absolutely - security shows up throughout - no argument there.

>	Also the ibm-ms-framework (img2) is a road-map which is 
>different from technology stack. Just because it is 
>Microsoft's roadmap does not make it a technology stack :-( I 
>am not saying the diagram has no value, the diagram explains a 
>lot and is a good (if not excellent) abstraction.
>
>	I have attached my view of this stack. WOuld appreciate 
>comments.

This is certainly more abstract but I am not sure I understand the terms
used - do you have a description of them? The reason why I commented on
Colin's stack is that it was somewhat more concrete in the acronyms
attached to the various layers. Why is the discovery layer on top - does
that mean that the discovery mechanism uses all the lower layers? Can I
use the inter-process collaboration layer without the business process
layer?

>	Another important point missing from the 
>ibm-ms-framework (img2) is the workflow/orchestration piece, 
>choreography piece and even the trx across boundaries. Routing 
>is not exactly workflow or orchestration. We haven't even 
>understood dynamic choreography !

This is what the box "Process Flow Pattern Description" in [1] supposed
to illustrate.

>	IMHO, the SOAP routing protocol is not where routing 
>should be. It might be an example but not a good example. I 
>think it is too anemic and is missing a lot of pieces. ebXML 
>TRP has better support for routing, still has a lot far to go.

You mean lacking pieces in the area of routing or other areas? Note that
it is quite deliberate that it doesn't go into other areas as this is
where the magic word behind Web Services - composability - comes in.

Thanks,

Henrik

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/04/wsws-proceedings/ibm-ms-framework/img2.htm
[2]
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/wsws-proceedings/ibm-ms-framework/framework.pp
[3] http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/xml_wsspecs/soap-rp/default.html
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2001 22:34:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:38 GMT