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

RE: Asynchronous Web Services!

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 12:25:13 -0600
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E403800B70@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt Cagle [mailto:kurt@kurtcagle.net]
> Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 11:36 AM
> To: Naresh Agarwal; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Asynchronous Web Services!
> 
>
> 
> This is a feeling I've held for some time. The XML Protocol 
> documents have 
> been working toward addressing asynchronous protocols for a 
> while, but the  SOAP specification has unfortunately been migrating 
> increasingly into a  synchronous model 

If you mean SOAP as practiced by .NET etc., I tend to agree (and I believe
that a Microsoft spokesperson admitted "guilty as charged" to the
assertion that they are focused on synchronous/tightly coupled web services
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/fe/xml/02/06/10/020610feappdevtci.xml )

Still, the XMLP WG and SOAP 1.2 have made it increasingly clear that
SOAP per se is a *one way* message protocol, and defines a number of
"message exchange patterns" -- including asynch notification -- as use
cases.

 
> Both SOAP and WSDL can, in theory, be used in an asynchronous 
> manner, but whether that remains the case into the future is dubious. 

Well, BEA for one makes quite a big deal out of asynchronicity in their
marketing,
Adam Bosworth's evangelism, etc.  I'd say that it is becoming 
increasingly clear that accomodations are being made to support
asynchronicity,
e.g. that is one selling point of BEEP over HTTP-tunneling as a "transport"
for web services.

> I worry,  however, that  much of the significant development 
> in the last decade toward  extending the 
> asynchronous model (most of the XML specifications on the 
> W3C) are threatened when government officials, software developers and
business 
> leaders associate XML with, and only with, synchronous SOAP

I strongly agree ... but this is a failure of evangelism by "real XML"
advocates rather than a technical failing of SOAP.  Or rather, being
totally outgunned by the "XML is a serialization format for objects that
developers needn't dirty their hands with" evangelism from certain 
tool vendors.

> document). I see SOAP as being a lot like DOM -- it is 
> necessary in the interim as the web moves increasingly to 
> an XML basis, but the DOM interactions will become thinner 
> and thinner as XML becomes  more prevalant 
> and much of the functionality gets taken over by declarative forms of 
> expression. 

The declarative vs procedural religious war has been going on for decades,
and will probably outlive us all!  I beg to differ, but let's sit around and
debate the subject around the fire at the old folks' home in a few more
decades after we see how it turns out :~)
Received on Saturday, 6 July 2002 14:25:46 GMT

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