On 5/18/06, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey,
No, I take issue with any spec which assumes that the Web isn't
necessary for Web services. UDDI, for example. And WS-Transfer and
WS-MetadataExchange. And WSDL is unnecessary, though at least
harmless from an architectural POV. But WS-Addressing is by far the
worst offender from a Web POV.
Tangling threads here: Now that we have a fairly authoritative account of the philosophy behind Amazon's architecture, what makes you think that your opinions on all this should be taken seriously by those who wish to design the next Amazon or eBay ... much less the people who just want to get their inventory system integrated with their customer system and make them available to the sales force via the web? Successful developers are above all pragmatic -- they don't care whether they are using HTTP as a "transport" or "transfer" protocol, they care if it gets the job done. They'll happily use WS-Addressing if it is useful for something they do care about in their architecture, whether or not it is the worst offender from the web architecture perspective.
Can you point to the Anti-Vogels, someone who wrote an article that shows how ignoring pragmatic / opportunistic technology choices and focusing on the principles of the web architecture rather than the principles of service architecture has led to actual business success?
SPONSORED LINKS
| Computer software | Computer aided design software | Computer job |
| Soa | Service-oriented architecture |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
