RE: Article: Fat protocols slow Web services

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger L. Costello [mailto:costello@mitre.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 8:46 AM
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Article: Fat protocols slow Web services
> 
> 
> Great discussion!  Let me see if I understand Kurt what you are saying
> is the proper use of Web services.  

I don't read it as a discussion of what is "proper," it's more a
clarification that there are situations in which the asynch/postal model is
more appopriate than the synchronous/RPC model.  The "RPC" model is more
widely understood, but an alternative "camp" that develops visions and tools
for the "asynch" model is starting to coalesce.

I've also noticed this trend, but prefer different terminology, the "strong"
and "loose" camps:  one tending toward tightly coupled architectures,
development using strongly typed languges, and a synchronous (RPC)
communications model; the other tending toward loosely coupled
architectures, untyped script languges, and an asynchronous communications
model.  [We definitely need help on the terminology, so suggestions are
welcome!]
 

> Interesting!  Can you elaborate upon the design and architecture of
> asynchronous, message-oriented applications, and upon the expectations
> of the users of such applications?

I hope that Curt elaborates on his perspective, but some of the people and
technologies I see that that support the "loose" camp would include
McGrath's XPipe
http://xpipe.sourceforge.net/Articles/Documentation/fog0000000039.html, the
RogueWave Ruple http://www.roguewave.com/developer/tac/ruple/ product, and
JXTA-spaces http://jxtaspaces.jxta.org/ "XML spaces" efforts.   Also permit
me to mention my employer's EntireX Orchestrator product
http://www.softwareagusa.com/products/entirex/orchestrator.htm as an "asych
toolkit" that may support the "loose" paradigm.

Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2002 09:41:36 UTC