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

Re: [service-orientated-architecture] A RESTafarian who eschews the use of SOAP

Expand Messages
  • Steve Jones
    ... Padded cell probably ;) ... In theory - practice and theory are the same thing. In practice they are not. ... How do we define heavyweights in this
    Message 1 of 166 , Jul 31, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      2008/7/31 Alexander Johannesen <alexander.johannesen@...>:
      > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 22:26, Steve Jones <jones.steveg@...> wrote:
      >>> They're pretty much all using HTTP and either XML or HTML URL-encoded
      >>> forms (and some Javascript where UI integration was required), so
      >>> they're already on the graph.
      >>
      >> So are the HTTP/SOAP folks and the CORBA tunnelled over HTTP or the
      >> VPN tunnelled over HTTP. All of those people are "using" HTTP but
      >> "using" a protocol says nothing about "how" it is used. Move out of
      >> the network layer and into the software.
      >
      > You two! Get a room, eh? :)

      Padded cell probably ;)
      >
      > Look, I think this is just plain miscommunication, especially about
      > that whole HTTP statistics part of traffic outside the firewall. Here
      > goes ;
      >
      > Yes, all of those using HTTP is, in theory, using REST, but no, 90% of

      In theory - practice and theory are the same thing. In practice they are not.

      > them are simply using GET/POST of REST to tunnel their shit across (be
      > it SOAP or otherwise), not giving two hoots about the protocol they
      > are using, never mind looking into how that protocol support what
      > their trying to tunnel through it to begin with .... By accident, 5%
      > are RESTful in their ways, and, sadly, 5% or less are doing it right.
      >
      > However, I think the "doing it right" figure will rise dramatically
      > (especially since AtomPub is done and embraced by heavyweights), and

      How do we define heavyweights in this context?

      > that SOAP use will go down as a direct result of it, simply because
      > there must be at least 50% reason not to do SOAP at all, especially
      > cost and complexity.

      I never get the complexity thing, REST isn't simple its got some very
      "nice" bits in it that are far from simple and its got some tough
      challenges (security for example) that aren't addressed. SOAP isn't
      complex, the complaint people make about it is that it is _too easy
      and hides the network_. So not doing SOAP might have many reasons but
      it can't be both complex and too easy.

      Steve
      >
      > Alex
      > --
      > ----------------------------------------------------------
      > Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
      > ------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
      >
    • 1589cb5d7c61c18b5748b74490d0fcd6
      Hi guys, I ve seen your discussion regards to OTA. Do you have or know where I can find an OTA server example built in .Net? Where can I find the OTA wsdl to
      Message 166 of 166 , Nov 22, 2013
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment

        Hi guys,


        I've seen your discussion regards to OTA.

        Do you have or know where I can find an OTA server example built in .Net?

        Where can I find the OTA wsdl to import? With provided OTA stuff I can only find the isolated .xsd files. Isn't there an OTA wsdl to get imported? 


        Thanks in advance



        ---In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, <atmanes@...> wrote:

        Exactly my point, John. Not everyone agrees with your (and my)
        distinction between choreography and orchestration. I'm positing that
        the person writing the original article was, in fact, talking about
        orchestration rather than choreography.

        Anne

        On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 3:50 PM, John Evdemon <jevdemon@...> wrote:
        > On 23 Aug 2008 at 11:54, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
        >
        >> If you define choreography as an executable workflow (a la
        >> BPEL), then I think it does
        >
        > Minor quibble: BPEL is an orchestration language, not a choreography
        > language.
        >
        > John
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.