- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:01:16 -0400
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
(Reply-To set to www-tag@w3.org, per your instruction) David, On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 03:19:26PM -0700, David Orchard wrote: > My belief is that the web has been based upon a shared information space, > primarily through use of GET/POST methods. However, as we move towards more > machine to machine oriented communications, with arbitrary payloads of XML, > and it's focus on update/service oriented architectures, the need for a > public contract for safe actions is dramatically reduced. We've danced around this issue for far too long, so I thank you for raising it, but you are incorrect. It is a common misconception by Web services proponents that HTTP is nothing more than a transport protocol which moves bits from A to B, where A is typically a web server, and B is typically a Web browser. It should come as no surprise that because of this view, it is felt that HTTP and the architectural style that describes it (REST) is insufficient for program to program communication. This could not be further from the truth. Anything that can be done with other architectural styles, such as message passing, RPC, tuple spaces, etc.. can also be accomplished with REST. It just has to be done in a different way. The common use of Web services, upon which you are bumping up against with this complaint, is not REST and is not the Web. It is attempting to use a different architectural style, RPC (or some derivative), that has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to be deployed on the Internet (ONC, CORBA, DCOM, RMI). > This is a classic liason > activity, where we need to strive for consensus between different views. I > would be glad to participate and help in such a liason. IMO, Web architecture - at least the core of it - is not a matter for concensus gathering. It should be extracted from running code and the lessons learned over the past 10+ years. The common use of Web services ignores virtually all of this past history. > 3. I encourage interested parties in the other groups to respond to this > issue. This is one of the first TAG findings, and has potential significant > ramifications to the web services architecture. You're darned tootin'! 8-) > Formal - as suggested in > item #2 - and personal discussions - this item - should help foster > education and consensus that have so far been illusive. I've specifically > sent this note to dist-app as a call to arms on this issue. I fully agree with Dan's draft findings, and I would be absolutely shocked, disappointed, and upset if the TAG were not able to agree on one of the single most important architectural principles on the Web. As an AC rep, I would actively pursue having the TAG disbanded if concensus could not be reached on such a fundamental issue; I would rather have no TAG, than a TAG that could not represent Web architecture within and outside the W3C, as the latter could do more damage by silencing the voices of the architects of the Web on the TAG; TimBL, Dan Connolly, and Roy Fielding. > 4. A personal note. I find it disappointing that we are debating this > issue. At least we agree on that. 8-/ Cheers, MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 22:54:56 UTC