- From: Amelia A. Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:29:09 -0400
- To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
- Cc: jean-philippe.moresmau@soamai.com, distobj@acm.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Dear Anne, On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:19:23 -0400 "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net> wrote: > Question: How does a .NET client access said EJB service? Although > WSIF It doesn't. This isn't because of gratuitous incompatibility between Sun's Java and MS's .Net, for a change. It's because of gratuitous incompatibility between JMS implementations. If I'm runing TIBCO's JMS implementation, and someone publishes a service based on Websphere using IBM's MQSeries implementation, I can't use the service. At least, I can't unless I install the MQSeries client so that I can understand the service. JMS is not a protocol; it's an API. There are dozens of incompatible wire formats. The only defined means of accessing a JMS service deployed using a particular implementation is by using the same implementation. > turns any service into the equivalent of a Web service for Java > clients, that doesn't in turn make those same services "Web services" > -- because .NET doesn't have the equivalent of WSIF. (This is the > biggest issue I have with JSR-109 -- which says that a Web service > client needs to access a Web service via JNDI. I don't think that > qualifies as a Web service.) I don't know the JSR. If it says that a web service description must be retrieved via JNDI, I'd agree with you. I think it is perfectly possible, however, to define a "web service" (a very ambiguous term, I'm afraid) which runs something completely proprietary, so long as the binding and the WSDL extensions have been published. This may involve much stricter constraints than "you must understand the pgm URI scheme and the PGM protocol associated with it". It may give as address information the JNDI hashtable entries (including a base uri and a query string, plus other more or less opaque information), and require that clients understand the syntax of the complex address type, *and* be able to run Java bytecode, *and* have the appropriate implementation available, and then to perform a particular algorithm in order to retrieve the thing that might be described with a simple URI using HTTP or PGM. As long as the service is described, and its content is described, it fits under the broad umbrella of web services. For JMS, specifically, the service is only going to be accessible using the same implementation that is deployed in the service, using java bytecodes, after performing a lookup in a JNDI repository based on information placed into the description. It would be a lot easier if the vendors (or even the spec writers for JMS) had agreed upon a URI scheme, but they didn't ... they didn't even agree upon a common wire protocol, so JMS is only accessible through the JMS API (in standard fashion, that is; various vendors have URI schemes, access via C++ and other languages (possibly including C# in .Net), and so on). Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 16:29:02 UTC