- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:25:51 -0400
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3c.org
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 01:41:45PM -0700, David Orchard wrote: > We believe that various programming models should be supported. I'm Most definitely! > surprised - though given history I shouldn't be - that the notion that WSDL > is a bad thing came up as a result of discussion on loose coupling. > Certainly seems to be lots of things in web services that are bad things... Well "bad" from the point of view of "doesn't scale on the Internet", yes. You're right though, you shouldn't be surprised, because I've been saying the same thing for over two years! Web services, as most people know them, are a mistake, based on a misconception of what the Web is, and how it works. > Our software manages to do what we think of as loose coupling and uses WSDL, > so we don't think they are coupled - so to speak ;-) I hope we don't have > to (yet again) have the debate about coupling, and how it relates to > interfaces/type-checking/programming languages/version control/component > architectures/run-time availability/asynchrony/latency. I was trying to be clear that I was talking about late binding. I agree that WSDL supports loose coupling of interface and implementation. I don't think we need to have that argument, because I don't expect that anybody in the WG would assert that the common use of WSDL (as an IDL) supports late binding. 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 17:15:24 UTC