RE: Where do we find software architecture?

Actually I also think we need to remember that this is the "Web Services Architecture" working group, not the "Web Architecture" working group. We are part of the "Web Services Activity" in W3C that also includes XML Protocols and Web Services Description.
 
I think someone might argue or disagree with the W3C process that brought us to this point, but I believe that the W3C process was followed for the establishment of this entire activity, meaning the membership created it, and it was not created arbitrarily.  
 
The implication is that we are not working in a vacuum, and are not able to start from "first principles" in redesigning SOAP and WSDL, since we are part of an Activity that includes them, and therefore our architecture at a minimum has to include them.
 
On a more personal than procedural note, I think the debate about REST and Web services is very important, even if it seems sometimes to be non-productive and delays progress.  

At the moment I'm convinced there's a middle ground on what seems to be the most important issue -- interface generality.  As long as we don't constrain the architecture, we can allow both general interfaces and specific interfaces (the latter perhaps when two parties agree to use them).  Then we can let the industry decide!  If generic interfaces are really superior, the usage of Web services will gravitate toward them over time, and settle the argument.  We can debate theory forever without conclusion.
 
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 6:50 PM
To: 'Mark Baker'
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Where do we find software architecture?



Mark 

You said ... 

>>>Hmm, I wonder where the disconnect was. 8-? 

Me too. I think it is really a question of emphasis. I think you are more inclined to build from the web and REST in particular. I, like David O, think that we should look at SOAP+WSDL and then extend it to include ideas from, IMO, ebXML.

What we need to do now, is decide the process to follow to get to where we need to get to ... 

David 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Mark Baker [ mailto:distobj@acm.org] 
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 12:54 PM 
To: Burdett, David 
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org 
Subject: Re: Where do we find software architecture? 


Hi David, 

On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 12:08:18PM -0700, Burdett, David wrote: 
> I agree that sometimes "software happens" and that you can later document 
> its architecture. But here are a few questions: 
> 1. Would you agree that the "architecture" for web services is not yet fully 
> developed? 

Yes, certainly. 

> 2. Do you agree that this group is tasked with developing an architecture 
> for web services? 

Yep. 

> 3. Developing an architecture (even though it might not be perfect) that 
> represents the **full scope** of what you want build is better than having 
> an inmcomplete architecture that only represents what currently exists to 
> guide the building of the solution? 

Well, in the long run, certainly.  But you've got to start somewhere.  I 
see our choice as between starting from scratch, or starting from what's 
out there today.  I prefer the latter. 

> If you agree, then I assert that we would be foolish if we did not look at 
> other existing **achitectures** (even though the solutions might not yet be 
> built or proven) as well as existing solutions. Otherwise we will lose out 
> on the many hours of thought that went into their construction. 

Agreed!  That's why I'm spending as much time as I am, supporting 
the harvesting effort.  It's critical to study other architectures. 
IMO, we should be studying less specs and more systems, but I don't 
mind studying both. 

Hmm, I wonder where the disconnect was. 8-? 

As I understood DaveO's suggestion to do this for SOAP+WSDL, I was 
supportive of it.  I would like us to write down the architecture for 
current Web services that are out there today, so we're starting our 
work from a *real* architecture, warts and all.  This will allow us to 
more easily identify areas for improvement, reason about how 
extensions can be deployed, figure out how new features (like SOAP 1.2 
GET support) fit in, etc.. 

I get the feeling that DaveO thinks this is some kind of trick on my 
part, but it's quite the opposite.  I met with the Director in Boston on 
Monday, and he encouraged me to help the WG get something published soon 
so that he could give his feedback.  That's what I'm trying to do.  My 
concern now, is that we're not going to document the architecture, we're 
going to document some kind of "logical model" which won't reflect (by 
itself) the sorts of things that he, and many other (but not all 8-) TAG 
members, will be looking for. 

MB 
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) 
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org 
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com