- From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:21:36 -0700
- To: "James M Snell" <jasnell@us.ibm.com>, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>, <www-ws-arch-request@w3.org>
I think that interoperability was the primary reason for even starting spending any time on all these "new" technologies. (As many people already observed, the real novelty of these technologies - what sets them apart from DCOM, CORBA, RMI, etc. - is their promise of interoperability). So, in my mind, "Interoperable Web Service" should not be an item in a Web services taxonomy, but should represent a property shared by all the elements in the taxonomy. That does not mean, of course, that in the future Web services should be limited to what is in WS-I BP 1.0 today. It is an evolving body of technologies, an things like SOAP over JMS and RESTfulness have to be properly taken into account. But interoperability should be the dividing line (a moving line, as I said) separating what is Web services from what is not. Given the piles of hype already existing in the area of Web services, relaxing the interoperability criterion would be a big mistake, prone to creating a lot of confusion and offering open "creativity license" to marketeers to classify anything they can think of as a Web service (which in the end would make the whole concept useless). Ugo > -----Original Message----- > From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 2:30 PM > To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org > Subject: Re: Is This a Web Service? > > > I have used the following terms to label a spectrum of Web > service types: > > Custom Web Service: Uses an interface description (e.g. > WSDL), but all > other WS specs are optional (e.g. it doesn't have to use SOAP, HTTP , > etc... this could be nothing more than a WSDL description of > a Java RMI > interface, for instance).... some would hesitate to call this a Web > service (me included... but I've stuck to the use of the term "Web > service" here so that it fits in with existing nomenclature) > > Internet Web Service: Uses an interface description (WSDL) + standard > internet protocols (e.g. HTTP). All other things (e.g. SOAP) are > optional. > > Interoperable Web Service: Uses an interface description > (WSDL) + standard > internet protoocls (e.g. HTTP) and SOAP. Generally talking > about WS-I > basic profile conformance. > > The point is, no, Web services should not be required to use > SOAP to be > considered Web services. At a barest minimum, they should > require nothing > more than a WSDL service description. > > - James M Snell > jasnell@us.ibm.com > http://www.ibm.com > (877) 511-5082 / Office > 930-1979 / Tie Line > > > > "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com> > Sent by: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org > 04/14/2003 02:19 PM > > To > www-ws-arch@w3.org > cc > > Subject > Is This a Web Service? > > > > > > > The recent conversation has included the interesting idea of > looking at > Web services as SOAP services. Are we really saying that > SOAP is integral > and required for ALL Web services? For example (and this is a real > example), suppose there is a Web site on the internet that is > oriented > toward returning results to people on browsers, but if you set the > parameters of the GET in a particular manner it runs an > application that > generates an image (the nature of which depends on other > parameters) and > returns that image (and only the image) as an HTTP type > image/png. I now > have an application that at some point wants to make such an > image with > the contents based, shall we say, on calculated values (in fact, this > determines text that is inside the image, if you must know) > -- and I do a > GET with the appropriate parameters, wait for the HTTP to > come back, write > the binary stream of the image somewhere and go about the > business of the > application which does something with the image. > Now, I personally think that's a Web service, mostly because of the > application to application flavor. I would not call it a "W3C Web > service", since it doesn't use WSDL and SOAP -- but it seems > pretty Web > service-ey to me. I would personally call it an "ad hoc" Web > service -- > and I would make up another name for ebXML transactions that > use SOAP but > not WSDL, since it seems to me that those, too, are Web services that > handle the description differently. > But what do you folks think? Does it absolutely have to use > SOAP to be a > Web service? If so, that's an interesting and really useful thing to > know. My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that > simpler, ad hoc > things like the example above are, indeed, Web services, but > you quickly > start needing SOAP if you want to do anything other than the > most basic > operations, and so in practice most of the "interesting" Web > services use > SOAP. I am certainly willing to agree that if a Web service uses ANY > enveloping mechanism that it should be SOAP, since there > don't seem to be > any other real popular candidates. Is that a reasonable > point of view? > >
Received on Monday, 14 April 2003 18:21:46 UTC