On Aug 22, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > Some might argue that a uniform programming interface to multiple > middlewares is a desirable thing. Why incur the extra cost of > protocol switching in an intermediary if you can simply package > your message in the correct protocol right from the start. The > client is going to do marshalling/unmarshalling regardless, so > there's no extra burden on the client. (It isn't performing > protocol switching -- it simply calls the appropriate protocol plug- > in/channel to marshal the request. A well-crafted framework should > treat all protocols as equals.)
I think it's also worth pointing out that this comes at a cost - creating a common abstraction above multiple protocols is costly, complicated, leaky, and might not work the way one wants to because although a framework might *consider* protocols equal, they simply *are* not. Instead of supporting multiple protocols and using a single framework to support them all, I much prefer to standardize on a protocol and support multiple frameworks. In other words: Standardize on plain HTTP or WS-I BP instead of some ESB or CSIF. Stefan -- Stefan Tilkov, http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
