- From: Nirmal Mukhi <nmukhi@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:51:47 -0500
- To: www-ws@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFB0607E05.4871C159-ON85256CFD.007D08C8-85256CFD.007D97CF@us.ibm.com>
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."
Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 11:46:02 UTC