RE: Late binding

Agree.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:47 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3c.org
Subject: Late binding


Hi Roger,

On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 12:46:46PM -0700, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:
> I'm not sure why you think that early binding is such a bad thing.  In 
> many instances late binding is a bad thing for various practical 
> reasons.  I myself tend to avoid late binding if I possibly can.  This 
> is not just me -- it is an accepted architectural principle in our 
> company's development community, and I believe that there are other 
> companies with similar views.
> 
> Actually, I don't think that a discussion of whether early or late 
> binding is a "good" or "bad" thing is likely to be very productive.  I 
> think that both are necessary and both must be supported.  I would be 
> very, very resistant to a suggestion that early binding should somehow 
> be forbidden or made impossible.  If you feel that supporting late 
> binding is critical I won't argue with you -- as long as you leave my 
> early binding alone.

For sure.

But just so you know my position, late binding is absolutely required for
Internet scale services, primarily because the coordination costs of early
binding are prohibitive between parties that don't already know one another
(and have a trusted relationship in which they can exchange information
about their services).

You can observe this with any SOAP 1.1 based service.  If I come across some
WSDL, where I had no previous knowledge of that service, then I can't use
the service.

Contrast this with the Web; if I come across a HTTP URI, I know that I can
interact with the resource using HTTP's methods.

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

Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 16:38:34 UTC