- From: Edwin Khodabakchian <edwink@collaxa.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:48:46 -0700
- To: "'Ugo Corda'" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, "'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>
+1. Well said! - Edwin > > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ugo Corda > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 3:22 PM > To: James M Snell; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) > 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 18:49:34 UTC