RE: Web Services contrasted with JCA

I agree with all your responses.
I personally wouldn't want to start "What is a WS?" discussion. :)

Thanks, sandeep

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Champion, Mike
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:42 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Web Services contrasted with JCA





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandeep Kumar [mailto:sandkuma@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 11:08 AM
> To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Web Services contrasted with JCA
>
>
>
> this WG ought to come up with metrics against which we can
> say what is a WS and what is not. The WS definition is too broad and too
high-level.

Well, I might be tempted to agree, but the "what is a web service?"
discussion got lost in a swamp very quickly, and I don't have much reason to
think  this wouldn't happen again.

To clarify my reason for posting the link to this article:  "web services"
has many aspects, and whatever possibility for a rigorous technical
definition there once was has probably been lost due to the various
technical disputes (e.g. REST vs "distributed objects") and the
not-always-helpful "contributions" of all of our marketing people.We're not
likely to agree upon metrics that rigorously define what a WS is and is not,
but maybe we can INFORMALLY sketch out distinctions between various
alternatives to show what the WS technologies add to the picture, what the
price they demand for their value add, and what's still missing.  I think
the discussion that Mark B. and I are having about the "pure Web" vs
"SOAP/WSDL" approach to the sports scores use case might lead to some useful
bits for the WSA document, and I was thinking that doing the same kind of
thing for J2EE/JCA/whatever and maybe some quasi-proprietary Microsoft
technology (COM?  Something in .NET?) might be informative too.

I don't want to push this idea if it gets us back into the swamp, however.
On the other hand, we may just have to irritate our respective marketing
people a wee bit in order to produce a truly useful document :-)

Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 12:47:11 UTC