W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Article: Fat protocols slow Web services

From: Frank D. Greco <fgreco@crossroadstech.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:36:24 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20020110102539.01da8008@mail.monmouth.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
At 01:47 PM 1/10/2002 +0000, Francis Norton wrote:
 >Hi Mike,
 >
 >Champion, Mike wrote:
 > >
 > > Would anyone seriously disagree that the current generation of
 > > SOAP-based technologies is a much easier "sell" for application
 > > integration behind the firewall than it is for wide deployment over
 > >  the internet? Or am I missing the point here entirely?
 > >
 >I've been doing pc-mainframe integration of one kind or another for a
 >dozen years or so now and one client that sticks in my mind was trying
 >to build an "object-interface to the mainframe". Another client wanted
 >to let his supliers check stock levels and take charge of resupply. And
 >another had a contractor in to build a repository of pc-mainframe
 >transactions so that they wouldn't get lost, rebuilt or broken.
 >
 >All looks so pretty much like Web Services with private UDDI, to me.

	People have been doing application integration for decades.
	Most of it, as Francis mentions, is/was ad hoc.  Wall Street
	has been using rpc, corba, tooltalk, tibco and home-grown
	integration frameworks for a *long* time.  I've been doing this
	type of work since the late 80's.

	I hope you SOAP-ists don't think that "behind the firewall"
	app integration is a new thing.

	The primary benefit of SOAP is *across* the firewall.  I sincerely doubt
	you'd convince the major global investment banks that SOAP is superior
	to what they already have for *internal* applications.  Maybe in
	a few years when SOAP (et al) frameworks are available, but not now.

	Frank G.
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 10:35:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:05 GMT