RE: REST wrap-up (was Re: Web Services Architecture Document

This has nothing to do with RPC.  It has to do more with using the SOAP
headers to deal with issues involving security, policy and

Hao was not talking about RPC vs document exchange either, as far as I
know.  The document exchange style of interaction is fully supported by
the Web services architecture.

-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Sled [] 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 3:09 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: He, Hao; Michael Champion;
Subject: Re: REST wrap-up (was Re: Web Services Architecture Document

On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 02:57:47PM -0600, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)

| From having discussed this with you in the past, I think that the 
| experiences you are basing this on have been within the enterprise.  I

| think that the capabilities SOAP brings to the table become much more 
| obviously necessary when you start looking at B2B.  In addition, we 
| are beginning to find problems within the enterprise of a similar 
| nature because ... Well, maybe I don't want to go into that in this 
| forum.

I'm hoping you can go into a bit in this forum...

You seem to be arguing that RPC is required due to some fundamental B2B

But the most expansive and capable B2B network I can think of is the
existing, RESTful Web.

I'm curious about the requirements of the problem you're seeing, and why
the style of the existing Web needs to be a concession within the
architecture document regarding Web services.

I'm also at odds with Mike Champion's statement that RPC works well
within a well-managed environment ["within the enterprise"], which also
doesn't seem to be a characteristic of the Web, but has a large focus in
the architecture document.


Received on Friday, 6 February 2004 16:47:15 UTC