Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

15144Re: What do you think about REST being a synonym of Service creation technique?

Expand Messages
  • William Martinez Pomares
    Apr 6, 2010
      Hi Stuart.
      > Sent from my iPad
      Cool! Quick adoption that is.

      > It's a bit of a stretch to say pure SOA has nothing to do with OO;
      Didn't mean really that. I actually mean what you said: SOA concepts were created somewhere else. Governance and Contracts are pure business ones, although OO may have used the contract metaphor in some languages, the concept is not from there, as OO didn't have it originally. It became a core concept in WSA.
      I meant to say SOA is different from Distributed OO. May share some concepts, but try to get them in a different way.
      You know, that is actually another discussion in the SOA forums. How much a Service reassembles an Object, if there is any difference in properties, etc. That is off-topic in this forum, I guess, but my take is SOA and OO share quality properties, but they differ in the core metaphor.

      Nice discussion!

      William Martinez.

      --- In rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Stuart Charlton <stuartcharlton@...> wrote:
      >
      > Comments inline
      >
      > Sent from my iPad
      >
      > On 2010-04-06, at 6:21 AM, "William Martinez Pomares" <wmartinez@...> wrote:
      >
      > 2. Making SOAP Services (Read RPC) is the easiest thing to do. Making them work together is another issue. Making real Web Services (using documents and messaging) is a pain in your little finger since there is not top down approach. Your system may be a fit for WSA, or a fit for SOA (slightly different benefits and requirements), but the implementation side is failing terribly.
      >
      > I tend to believe this is because "real services" are a concept created by SOA consultants (I was one of them, sorry).... it is hard for vendors to apply to their products.
      >
      > That and my sense is that the adoption of WS technology peaked in the WSDL 1.1 days, doing "just enough" for most cases that the truly advanced cases with WS-AT or WS-RM only have relatively small investments behind them. There needs to be $$$ to drive vendors to improve these stacks, and it's clearly not there to the extent they had hoped.
      >
      > 4. "SOA's verbiage" you mention is not actually from SOA, but sadly those concepts were made popular by SOA and from there people get confused. Governance and contracts came from the business world, the first one to increase the interest of business people to invest on the technology (yep, a worm to catch the fish) and the second one came from WSA. Interoperability and loose coupling came from OO world, and thus created the illusion that SOA was a OO system in disguise. Actually, many SOA implementations out there are Distributed OO in disguise. A pity, since Pure SOA has nothing to do with it.
      >
      > It's a bit of a stretch to say pure SOA has nothing to do with OO; design by contract was a big innovation in a couple OO languages, as were many of the tenants such as separation of interface from implementation, composition, etc. SOA eschews object state and identity, which is ironic, because that's exactly what REST embraces, if you look at it through an object-oriented lens.
      >
      > Otherwise, again speaking from my former life as a SOA consultant with BEA, things like governance and contracts weren't just sell jobs, they were an attempt to separate and save the valuable ideas in SOA from the atrocities of the WSA...
      >
      > My broader point is that REST as an architectural style to enable SOA has been an idea I have heard and supported dating back to 2003 or so... the problem is that the REST community has limited interest in SOA, and the SOA community thinks in different terms from architectural constraints and styles. So if there is going to be bridge building, there has to be some terminology agreement, but I haven't really seen much effort there for several years. After the W3C workshop on the "Web of Services", agreement was declared, but the reality was that most advocates moved on from bridge-building and stayed in their own world.
      >
      > 6. Same, I agree about the descendants part. Still, the SOA idea is different from Implementation. I'll be naive enough to think the SOA and Services idea were born pure, and when implementation started, tool vendors took what they have at that time (SOAP as the next Corba/Dcom generation, and Message queues) and did some rebranding to get to sell SOA tools! So, I still think we can save the pure ideals of SOA (but not with REST, which is a different kind of beast).
      >
      > Now, question, what should we do about it?
      >
      > Well, it's not clear what can be done. Enterprises clearly don't have money to replace yet another generation of middleware, so there's little incentive for investment to learn or adopt a different approach (by customers or vendors). Most of the REST improvements and understandings are happening on the Web and in consulting engagements, not by traditional vendors and their patrons. That may change, but it will require some economic shifts and/or killer product breakthroughs. Cloud computing, for example, seems to be very REST-infected, for better or worse.
      >
      > Stu
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > __________________________________________________________________
      > Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now
      > http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com
      >
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic