Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Client Side Invocation Frameworks?

[Anne Thomas Manes]

+1.
But many times you don't have the luxury of homogeneous systems.

Anne

On 8/23/06, Stefan Tilkov < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

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

•  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.

---

__,_._,___