- From: Francesco Furfari <francesco.furfari@isti.cnr.it>
- Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:28:44 +0100
- To: Jim Webber <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Cc: hf0722x@protecting.net, www-ws@w3.org
Jim Webber wrote: >Hey Francesco, > > > >>So, in my opinion, web services are simply managed software >>that expose service interfaces in a standard >>machine-processable format and we could improve >>interoperability if the standardization process concerns the >>state rapresentation too. >> >> > >On the contrary you introduce an interoperability problem by exposing >yet another set of actors that I have to interoperate with. > >Jim >-- >http://jim.webber.name > > > > mmm... I think I have to read a lot of things before to say some one of useful ;-) It seems to me that a lot of misunderstanding comes from different "stateful web services" interpretation ... I think to start from Roy Thomas Fielding's work that has already been cited in this very long debate to appreciate all the positions expressed here. Some weeks ago on java.sun.com web site there was a nice graphical map of all Java related technologies ... I think a similar "WSMap" could be very useful to understand all different movements around Web Services with links pointing to the right resources ... with wiki technologies should be enough easy to set up it ... any volunteer ? anyway ...yes it is , I introduce a new problem because it wasn't addressed neither solved before (I suppose). Yes, may be in such way we add another layer on top of the protocol stack, with performance iussues (etc.), but it could be convenient if we hide this complexity inside the WS middleware. From the developer pointview we shouldn't care more about how the session or context is managed inside a specific "developer kit \ container" (at least we do it in a standard way). From machien to machine perspective we could move the state (or references) between differents host. All this requirements can be considered suitable for all domains? Is there a large demand to justify the effort? Is it valid only for a limited numebr of applications? At the moment others have better answers than me ;-) ciao francesco
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2004 17:29:38 UTC