- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 20:47:19 -0400
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
- Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E405774152@usmsg03.sagus.com>
-----Original Message----- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 7:54 PM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: Stranger in a Strange Land Once again I feel like I am torn between different universes. It would be a lot easier for me, and certainly more comfortable, if I spent my all my time in a single environment where everyone comfortably accepts the same assumptions and values. It's good we have you to keep our butts regularly kicked! We do have a bit of a vendor orientation here, and we need to keep the customer perspective in mind. OK, let's be more specific. I have learned that a company which I think is much larger than any represented in the W3C has forced another company that I think is larger than any in the W3C to accept XML payloads (lots of them) totally without envelopes. "I don't need no stinking SOAP". They presumably have a reliable messaging infrastructure (or application code) to report whether messages are successfully delivered, and no requirements for complex routing, nor for encryption that has to work across multiple hops (unlike SSL), and no long running stateful interactions (aka choreographies), and are happy hand-coding their WS invocations rather than having them generated from the formal description. That's fine, but the whole point of what we're doing is to support the people who need the higher levels of the WS infrastructure. People who just have a URI and need to get data from it directly may well not get any advantage from SOAP, but those who have more complex needs can take advantage of the infrastructure that SOAP (and WSDL) add. I think there is something wrong here, folks. It seems to me that we may be seeing the beginnings of a market rebellion. I don't worry that there is something wrong. Maybe there's something right, if people are using the bits of the Web/Webservices corpus that actually meet their needs as opposed to those that the pundits and marketing folks say they should use. If the masses want to rebel against the hypemeisters and marketing weasels, toss a few rocks for me! But I don't think that Web services technologies are the enemy here. I see the WSA as encompassing everything from simple RESTful XML exchanges over HTTP to secured, choreographed, reliable transactions over diverse protocols. We don't talk about the simple stuff much because it's pretty well defined. My dispute with the RESTifarians is over whether the "envelope-less" approach will be practical in complex applications, not over whether the SOAP approach is necessary in simple applications.
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2003 20:47:22 UTC