Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: SOA Reference Architecture

Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:31:12 -0700

I'm going to ask a question here...

Does it matter?  Its 2006, shouldn't we be at a stage where 99% of developers can ignore the wire protocol and just get on with exchanging information?  I want to be able to define my interface, to share that with others and have them consume that interface (in a tool) and then communicate.

WSDL is VERY simple when you have the right tools, REST might have advantages over it, but does it really progress the state of the art at all?  We are arguing over two different forms of ASCII RPC here (eventing aside). To me we should all just pick a horse and back it, as long as it works well enough.  802.11x isn't the "best" Wifi specification in the world, but by agreeing on a standard that works they've created one of the biggest and broadest networking changes even seen.

<a href="" href="http://service-architecture.blogspot.com/2006/05/soap-v-rest-more-pointless-than-vi-v.html"> http://service-architecture.blogspot.com/2006/05/soap-v-rest-more-pointless-than-vi-v.html">SOAP v Rest - more pointless than vi v emacs</a>





On 28/06/06, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 6/27/06, Gregg Wonderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Making an invocation layer treat transport different from transfer is where it
> can become ugly. If you need to transport a session or conversational protocol
> between two network entities, that might be more difficult, and often is, when
> you have to consider the bits as being transfered. In particular, there is
> extra layering with HTTP in particular, which complicates matters by demanding
> that there be logical boundries or switching points between forward flowing and
> backward flowing data.

You totally lost me, Gregg.

Mark.


__._,_.___


SPONSORED LINKS
Computer software Computer aided design software Computer job
Soa Service-oriented architecture

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



__,_._,___

Reply via email to