On 5/24/06, patrickdlogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
A *big* problem to me is that vendors, et al. promote the WS-*
approach and then people find WSDL-based code generation is so
convenient (at first) that developers don't even *think* about the
HTTP and URI approach and what might be lost or duplicated as a result.
Isn't the basic issue here that the "web style" can be implemented with tools that vendors have sold / given away for at least a decade, but require a lot of work by the application writer ... which suggests an opportunity for entrepeneurs and innovators at existing companies to automate this work by putting new functionality in the infrastructure? Naturally vendor PR people / evangelists will talk about the new stuff. And just as naturally, people who make their living helping people to differentiate their offerings from the mainstream will stress the value of doing work at the application layer rather than the generic infrastructure. This is the way of the world, not a problem for the IT industry. Automobile marketers don't stress what is common and generic to the standard automobile platform ("The 2007 Honda keeps you dry in the rain and has an electric starter!!!!"). Neither will most companies (Sun apparently being the exception, snark, snark) make a big deal about their support for HTTP these days. That doesn't mean that anyone will or should forget about what HTTP does any more than consumers will forget that *any* car they buy will have an electric starter, keep them dry in the rain, etc. etc. etc.
The other point that one has to realize is that no matter what is possible for application developers assembling what we (at Microsoft, anyway) call "green bits" (as in "greenfield development, I guess), it's the economics of "red bits" (red as in stained with the blood, sweat, and tears of the generations that came before, I guess) that drives much of the industry. Most developers are opportunistic / pragmatic; if they can import a WSDL file into Excel and get it to consume data from their corporate IT system, they are happy. If you tell them that they could have done the same thing with raw HTTP / XML plus a bit of application coding, they will probably not care. Of course if you are scaling that app out to the web, you will have to care, and if the WS-* doesn't add any actual value, you'll pay for the HTTP app development. But on the other hand, if you are laboriously re-inventing multi-hop secure / reliable messaging using a pure Web Style to get your Microsoft desktops talking to your Sun server apps over some proprietary message queuing middleware, your boss is going to be asking why you don't just leverage all the work that MS and Sun did to get WS-* actually working in that environment.
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.
