Ted Neward: "Long live XML services!"

Discussions

Blogs: Ted Neward: "Long live XML services!"

  1. Ted Neward: "Long live XML services!" (5 messages)

    Ted Neward, in "It's time to do away with this 'Web' service thing... long live XML services!," saying "The problem is that when we say "Web services", the "web" part of it implies HTTP and REST and all that other stuff. It's time we faced reality: SOAP is not just for doing stuff over the Internet."

    Threaded Messages (5)

  2. What?[ Go to top ]

    The problem is that when we say "Web services", the "web" part of it implies HTTP and REST and all that other stuff. It's time we faced reality: SOAP is not just for doing stuff over the Internet. It's time we started calling them what they are: XML services.
    Ted has totally lost me with the distinction that he's trying to make here. SOAP doesn't require HTTP... but you could also say that XML services don't require SOAP. Going further, services don't require XML.

    We might as well just call them what they are: services.

    --John
  3. What? hopefully clarified[ Go to top ]

    The problem is that when we say "Web services", the "web" part of it implies HTTP and REST and all that other stuff. It's time we faced reality: SOAP is not just for doing stuff over the Internet. It's time we started calling them what they are: XML services.
    Ted has totally lost me with the distinction that he's trying to make here. SOAP doesn't require HTTP... but you could also say that XML services don't require SOAP. Going further, services don't require XML.We might as well just call them what they are: services.--John
    XML services without SOAP miss an important part of what SOAP provides, which is to say, framing and extensibility points. SOAP "just" provides a place to hang additional out-of-band information, such as confidentiality/integrity/authentication headers (a la WS-Security), guaranteed delivery semantics (a la WS-Reliability or WS-ReliableMessaging), and so on, without having to "pollute" your actual message content. The same sort of stuff is present in most wire protocols, in fact, for the same sorts of reasons. (Take a look at JMS or MSMQ, you'll see the same basic construct there, too.)

    So while it's fair to say that "services don't require XML" (a quick look at Jini pretty much confirms that idea, IMHO), I think it is necessary to say that "XML services require SOAP". To exclude SOAP is to miss a large opportunity for standardization.
  4. What? hopefully clarified[ Go to top ]

    "XML services require SOAP". To exclude SOAP
    >> is to miss a large opportunity for standardization

    If it's about SOAP after all, then why not call it "SOAP Services"? R.
  5. Long live IIOP Services![ Go to top ]

    IIOP Services all the way!

    no.

    CSV Services!

    :)
  6. Ted Neward: "Long live XML services!"[ Go to top ]

    XML services fits the bill for Web Services, SOAP, XML-RPC...

    Point is: XML sucks.

    When the REAL engineers starts getting back to the IT industry, they will hopefully set things straight.