- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:08:18 -0500
- To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Hi Mike,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:23:33AM -0700, Champion, Mike wrote:
> > If you don't buy that argument, would you agree that having less
> > interfaces means easier integration? i.e. that it's easier if all the
> > insurance companies agree on a standard interface than it would be if
> > they didn't?
>
> I don't see any evidence that this is true. CORBA, HTTP, etc.
> deal with the protocols for shipping data around; IDL and WSDL
> deal with interface definitions, XML deals with the data format
> and encoding issues.
That's not true. HTTP defines the interface, the same way IDL or
WSDL does. Transport protocols, like TCP, do the "shipping data
around" for HTTP.
> > If so, would you also agree that if banking and CRM
> > companies could agree to wrap themselves in the same interface, that
> > this would further reduce integration costs? And if yes to that, then
> > wouldn't the ultimate interface be one that could wrap all systems?
>
> I'm afraid we have to get into the S-word ("semantics" ... shudder).
> CORBA assumes that someone has mapped the meaning of of the interaction
> onto methods and arguments, REST assumes that the meaning of the interaction
> is encoded as a "document".
No, REST assumes that the meaning of the interaction has been mapped to
methods and arguments as well. Just the same methods and arguments as
everybody else (uniform).
If we want an apples-to-apples, no red herrings comparison here, we can
ignore data semantics, because both styles have exactly the same problem
to overcome in this regard; once you've got data, how do you process it?
MB
--
Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Will distribute objects for food
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 12:04:45 UTC