RE: Normative constraints on the WSA

Whether you use document style or the SOAP RPC convention, (from what I've
seen) most people are using SOAP to invoke specific service operations.
That's what I mean by "RPC". Consider WSDL -- the core artifact is
<portType> which contains a set of <operations>.

Anne

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Walden Mathews
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 3:53 PM
> To: Christopher B Ferris; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Normative constraints on the WSA
>
>
>
> Christopher,
>
> My mistake.  See [1].  You said RPC was implied.
>
> Notwithstanding that, I'd been hearing mostly anti-RPC sentiment on
> this list, and today I'm seeing a resurgence of RPC interest, so I'm
> wondering what that means.
>
> Walden
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Apr/0188.html
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
> To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 1:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Normative constraints on the WSA
>
>
> >
> > Walden,
> >
> > You said:
> >
> > > I'm not saying you're wrong here; you've been around it way longer
> > > than me, but I had the strong impression that EVERYONE at this
> > > point felt that RPC was dead as the principal pattern of Web Services.
> > > Recently I asked Chris Ferris whether some WSA language ought to
> > > include reference to RPC, and the anwer was 'no', for example.
> >
> > I'd be very interested to know when/where I said that WSA should not
> > include
> > reference to RPC. Maybe in a specific context within the
> document, but not
> > as a
> > generalization.
> >
> > Certainly, I would agree that a message- rather than procedure-oriented
> > approach is superior ;-), but I don't believe that I ever suggested that
> > WSA not
> > accomodate its application. I think that despite the short-comings of
> > RPC-oriented
> > systems, they'll be around for a long time to come.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Christopher Ferris
> > Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> > phone: +1 508 234 3624
> >
> > www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 05/18/2003 12:57:55 PM:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > This current generation of Web services technology uses
> (abuses?) the
> > Web.
> > > > But it is NOT the Web. It is RPC-oriented middleware -- it is
> > > > service-centric rather than resource-centric. It's about
> verbs rather
> > than
> > > > nouns. If I recall correctly, the folks that originally
> came together
> > in
> > > > April 2001 to talk about Web services and that recommended the
> > immediate
> > > > formation of this group weren't even thinking about REST at
> the time.
> > We
> > > > were thinking about RPC. And we wanted to define an over-arching
> > > > architecture for this type of middleware.
> > > >
> > > > I think that's what this group should focus on.
> > >
> > > I'm not saying you're wrong here; you've been around it way longer
> > > than me, but I had the strong impression that EVERYONE at this
> > > point felt that RPC was dead as the principal pattern of Web Services.
> > > Recently I asked Chris Ferris whether some WSA language ought to
> > > include reference to RPC, and the anwer was 'no', for example.
> > >
> > > Why the current interest in "service orientation", by the way?  It
> > > seems counter to the almost ubiquitous revolution from procedural
> > > programming application models to object orientation.  What service
> > > can a "service oriented" application provide that a "resource
> oriented"
> > > one cannot?  I would say they are both about "action", and I'd be
> > > interested to know whether people see one model subsuming the other,
> > > and if so, which model that would be.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > At the same time, I think that it would be an excellent endeavor to
> > work
> > > on
> > > > the next generation of Web services -- a RESTful version of Web
> > services.
> > > > I'd love to see another Working Group started to focus on
> this work. I
> > > just
> > > > don't think that this work should interfere any further with the
> > immediate
> > > > work at hand.
> > >
> > > At the level where end clients would have interest, would these two
> > > groups be solving different problems, or solving the same problem?
> > >
> > > > Most of the retail commerce success is based on CGI/ASP/JSP -- which
> > very
> > > > definitely tunnels method calls through HTTP. It isn't RESTful.
> > >
> > > ?? JSP is a convenience for Java HTTP Servlet, which is typically
> > > set up to GET and POST for all operations, but can easily be
> configured
> > > so the application can also use PUT and DELETE.  Where is the
> > > tunnel?
> > >
> > > Walden
> > >
> >
> >
>

Received on Sunday, 18 May 2003 23:17:22 UTC