The point is not satisfying or not - it is not a "one size fits all world." As Mark points out he prefers one way. Others prefer another. You can argue endlessly (as people have, do, and will) about whether one preference is "right" or "better" somehow than another, or you can just be practical, like Amazon (apparently at least) and provide both.
Eric
----- Original Message ----
From: Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:09:02 AM
Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: an SOA in practice
On 5/22/06, patrickdlogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The way I interpret Werner's comments is that if you want to make a
> > service that can be consumed by all constituencies, you should
> > provide a POX interface for people who prefer to use dynamic
> > languages and a WS-* interface for those that prefer to use compiled
> > languages.
> >
> > From: Eric Newcomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > That's pretty consistent with what Amazon folks have been saying for
> > a couple of years now.
>
> And is this a satisfying approach to people on this list? Why or why
> not?
Not for me. Even if the language was "static", I think it's still
simpler to turn a string (URI) into data (via HTTP GET)- as a Java or
.NET developer would be able to do with java.net or System.Net - than
it would be to call a proprietary getFoo API via SOAP. Even if the
response were serialized Java objects, I think this would still hold.
Mark.
----- Original Message ----
From: Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:09:02 AM
Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: an SOA in practice
On 5/22/06, patrickdlogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Anne Thomas Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The way I interpret Werner's comments is that if you want to make a
> > service that can be consumed by all constituencies, you should
> > provide a POX interface for people who prefer to use dynamic
> > languages and a WS-* interface for those that prefer to use compiled
> > languages.
> >
> > From: Eric Newcomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > That's pretty consistent with what Amazon folks have been saying for
> > a couple of years now.
>
> And is this a satisfying approach to people on this list? Why or why
> not?
Not for me. Even if the language was "static", I think it's still
simpler to turn a string (URI) into data (via HTTP GET)- as a Java or
.NET developer would be able to do with java.net or System.Net - than
it would be to call a proprietary getFoo API via SOAP. Even if the
response were serialized Java objects, I think this would still hold.
Mark.
SPONSORED LINKS
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.
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.
