On 11/12/06, Eric Newcomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I should just note that comparing the Web to WS-* is an apples-to-oranges > comparison (one being an application and the other being a collection of > specifications). > > I'd also like to point out that this recent discussion started with a > question about an alternative to WS-* and so far none has been presented. > > I believe what makes this an endless debate (and why is it endless if someone > is right and someone is wrong?) is the different assumptions behind opinions > like "the Web is all you need" and "WS-* are easier for binary languages. > > As has been pointed out before, Amazon.com provides both XML/HTTP and SOAP > interfaces for their "Web services" because different types of developers > prefer one or the other. This was first mentioned in an interview with Jeff > Barr about three years ago: > > http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail31.html > > He said (to paraphrase) that XML/HTTP appealed to Web developers while SOAP > appealed to Java/VB developers since it was easier for them to work with. > > I cannot see that this is an argument that anyone will win - what I see is > both approaches co-existing and (hopefully) each being used for what it's > best at. > > In fact I will predict that in the year 2007 we will see a kind of "domain > specific language" phenomenon in which XML/HTTP, REST, and WS-* based > solutions will start to exist in combination!
I hope you are right Eric, unfortunately I think we will go into the OO "religious wars" of the mid 90s and argue REST v WS-* till blue in the face. Its pointless but its what IT does. I'd love to see an IBM CBM, Microsoft Motion (but without the direct product links) or the Oasis contribution that I made be the level we are aruging about next year. Looking at the SCA specs there isn't anything there that mandates WS-* as the implementation so it could be the container, but it doesn't do the dynamic stuff that the REST folks want. +1 in desire but -100 in belief it will happen :( > > Eric > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:49:13 AM > Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: REST FAQ > > > > > On 12/9/06, Gervas Douglas <gervas.douglas@ gmail.com> wrote: > > So, Mark, are you in effect asserting that REST as a disruptive > > technology could cause, shall we say, career and economic problems for some > > of the less agile members of the WS-* community, or am I reading far too > > much into this? > > No, you're bang on, Gervas. > > > My personal opinion is that you as an individual have done much to bring > > REST's virtues to the attention of the world; however as I have alluded > > before, perhaps it needs more structure and resources to really take off. > > Thanks. But in one very important sense REST is doing just fine; the > Web remains the largest and most successful distributed system we > humans have ever developed, while Web services wouldn't make it onto a > list of the top 1000. Hence my focus isn't on seeing REST do well, > because it's already winning; it's on trying to help Web services > proponents realize the benefits of using a Web based approach to > solving their, and their customers', Web services problems. I also > try to prevent their specs from harming the Web too, of course, but > there's been little of that to worry about recently. > > So from that POV, I don't think we need more structure or resources. > I think we could just do with some new blood which understands REST, > but has different ways of explaining its value. Folks like Stuart and > Stefan, for example. > > Mark. > > > > ________________________________ Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people who know. > >
