Re: Protocol independence

Hi,

On this topic, has anybody taken a look at WSIF 
(http://ws.apache.org/wsif)? It's an Apache project that supports a 
WSDL-driven API for service invocation, and also defines bindings so that 
you can expose just about anything as a WSDL-described service - including 
things accessible through JMS, as EJBs, local java classes, etc. 
(obviously the term "web service" here would be a misnomer, but IMHO this 
is service invocation - with the most liberal definition of "service").

Nirmal.




Mike Champion <mc@xegesis.org>
Sent by: www-ws-request@w3.org
04/03/2003 05:33 PM
 
        To:     www-ws@w3.org
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: Protocol independence



On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:18:39 -0500, Mark Baker <mbaker@idokorro.com> wrote:

> My question was,
> effectively, whether a Web services approach necessitated
> treating my tuple based system as a SOA?

Well, that depends on what you mean by a "web service" and a "SOA" <duck>

I personally think that, for example, a system that uses JXTA-spaces or 
some other "XML spaces" system (or a JavaSpaces system that has some way 
of 
transferring XML Infosets around)to do machine-machine communication over 
the Web is a "Web service."  In the [wretched, loathesome!] stock quote 
example, you wouldn't necessarily need SOAP or WSDL or RPC ... just setup 
the URIs (or whatever JavaSpaces uses to identify spaces), agree on how 
semantically meaningful information is to be represented in XML, and you 
can GET or take() stock quotes just as easily as you can by POSTing 
SOAP/RPC invocations.

Is that SOA?  Beats me ... I think a case can be made that it's SOA 
because 
it's distributed, loosely coupled, standards-based, and can be conceived 
of 
as a "service" providing business value.  It's not SOA if you use that 
term 
(as we sometimes do in these discussions) as a shorthand for "CORBA-like 
distributed object systems."