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

Re: [service-orientated-architecture] RE: Messaging Standards-(Reliable and Durable)

Expand Messages
  • Steve Ross-Talbot
    If you were building an application that is totally within an enterprise what compelling reason would make you even look at WS-RM? I can see if you cross
    Message 1 of 54 , Apr 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      If you were building an application that is totally within an
      enterprise what compelling reason would make you even look at WS-RM? I
      can see if you cross organisational boundaries this stuff might be
      attractive but if you are within a domain of control (an organisation)
      then I cannot see why you would use WS-RM. If you have MSoft on the
      desk top you can always use ASP.NET Web Service style and pass to a
      service that is a proxy for JMS. Any light on this would be most
      welcome.

      I might just be behind the times.

      Cheers

      Steve T

      On 31 Mar 2006, at 17:52, Logan, Patrick D wrote:

      > > The response was "who needs WS-RM, just use JMS"
      >
      > I would be interested in real experience reports comparing these two
      > approaches. How well does WS-RM line up with the various capabilities
      > of
      > JMS, and how well various vendors' implementations of WS-RM implement
      > the standard, how well they interop with each other and so on.
      >
      > Is WS-RM even a standard yet?
      >
      > Unless someone can produce the information above, I'd have to say the
      > better investment for the time being would be in JMS.
      >
      > I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I've not found a shred of
      > support for that yet. I'd *really* like to see it so please respond.
      >
      > I'll have to interpret no response as implying no evidence.
      >
      > Thanks
      > -Patrick
      >
      >
      >
      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      > ▪  Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.
      >  
      > ▪  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      >  service-orientated-architecture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >  
      > ▪  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      > Service.
      >
      >
    • Mark Baker
      ... As Jan said, what I said above doesn t imply HTTP, just uniform operations. SMTP - email - also has uniform operations, just less of them than HTTP. i.e.
      Message 54 of 54 , Apr 8, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On 4/7/06, Gregg Wonderly <gergg@...> wrote:
        > Mark Baker wrote:
        > > Gregg,
        > >
        > > On 4/5/06, Gregg Wonderly <gergg@...> wrote:
        > > > The issue with REST is that it considers HTTP as the invocation layer too, with
        > > > the PUT, GET, POST, etc operations as the fixed set of "functions" that you can
        > > > invoke.
        > >
        > > Right, nicely said.
        > >
        > > > In a more sophisticated invocation layer, you can imagine the use of
        > > > multiple wire protocols such as HTTP being used to perform a single server side
        > > > operation.
        > >
        > > Separating the concerns of application operations and on-the-wire
        > > representations had value in CORBA, DCOM, DCE, RMI and other RPC style
        > > systems, because they had to support a wide variety of interfaces and
        > > operations. But once you embrace a fixed set of operations, the value
        > > of keeping these layers separate, drops.
        >
        > Except when HTTP is not available. That's the issue. Not everything is HTTP
        > and not everything works with HTTP.

        As Jan said, what I said above doesn't imply HTTP, just uniform
        operations. SMTP - email - also has uniform operations, just less of
        them than HTTP. i.e. it only has an equivalent for POST ("DATA"), not
        of GET, PUT, or DELETE.

        > I think your view of "services" is still confined to "transfer a document."

        Absolutely.

        > This is by far the least common service in my world.

        They don't exchange data in your world? Wow, where do you live anyhow? 8-)

        It's the most common form of communication used in e-business today (think EDI).

        Cheers,

        Mark.
        --
        Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.