Maybe I didn't elaborate enough on my point about "Not using the full power of Web Services".
I was thinking more from a conceptual (architecture) POV.
I see that most people are content with exposing there existing **objects** as web services which is fine. (so code first approach, allthough they wrote the code before thinking about exposing their **components** as Web Services.)
But what I like to see is systems designed with Web Services in mind. I had a discussion with Sanjiva recently about this very point. And perphaps he can add to it, if I have missed anything.
If people can look at a Service from a more higer level with out constraining themselves to objects they can design better components that are more message oriented. Thinking in terms of a Web Service as an Object right at the start will give the wrong picture about granularity and
it also gives the impression that the only way to interact with a service is with a blocking request response pattern.
A Web Services interaction should be envisioned beyond the semantics of a method call.
Asynchrony and message orientation are powerful concepts in my opinion and they can help you design components that are more robust and flexible.
So if you are just content with exposing some existing object using a framework (sometimes this is the only option from a business perspective), then you have used web services just for the sake of it. But if you use a more message oriented approach (wsdl/schema first) you could leverage these powerful concepts to build better systems.
Did I manage to get the point across?
Regards,
Rajith
On 5/9/06, Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Hi Rajith!
Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> If things can be done effectively with minimum effort then a business
> would.
> consider it over something else.
> Maybe I was frustrated with people always complaining about not being able
> to do this or that with the current tools.
> (Human beings always wants more, and when I think it's the same with me, so
> there is nothing wrong with it )
+1! Wanting more / easier is what pushes innovation. For instance, I'm
pretty glad I don't have to crank-start my automobile these days. :)
> But as Jin rightly points out this is an important factor and I appolagize
> for my comment.
Dude, no need to apologize... It's just a discussion and we deal with
differing opinions and ways of communicating all the time - there was
nothing to apologize for. "Yup, I can see your point" is quite
sufficient, IMHO. :)
> All though I recognize that exposing there existing objects as Web Services
> is like 90% of the case, I am sad that people are not willing to take full
> advantage of the power of web services. I recognize the above feature as
> *VERY* important.
>
> But again I am sad that this is as far as people are willing to go. I would
> be very happy if they go further into tapping the full potential of the web
> services. Maybe I have missed the point.
What do you think "the full potential of web services" is, Rajith?
Imagine using Axis2 to do a fully data-bound service, but also using the
WSRM/WS-Security modules and perhaps even using Synapse to notarize
requests/responses at an intermediary. To the user, that's just a
Java-based remote invocation which happens to use WS transport. But
they get all this nice QoS and notarization, and can switch out versions
of WSRM without changing their service code, etc.... That sure seems
like using the power of the framework to me!
--Glen
