On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 03:16, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Peter Donald wrote:
> > It is basically yet another attempt to bring around interoperability much
> > like all the various distributed object/rpc protocols (DCOM, IIOP etc).
> > However the claim is that this time it will work because messages are
>
> plain
>
> > text and that you use HTTP which is generally not firewalled off.
>
> Personally, I'd ignore the firewall parts of the discussion. That's a
> distraction.
>
> My take on it: CORBA and DCOM failed to achieve ubiquity because they tried
> to do too much and were too vendor specific (both protocols shared these
> aspects, but to different degrees).
I always thought it was the lack of standardized/open higher level
"interfaces" (ie DTD/Schema fo web services, IDL for CORBA, etc).
So pick a biz domain - Now there wasn't any open standard description format
to exchange info so you made up your own (or maybe use a partners if
licensing fees aren't too steep). So you end up with Babel communication,
lots of talking but all in different languages.
The one advantage that I think Web Services could have is if an organization
was setup to standardize these high-level contracts. I think that MS is
attempting to become such a group (and collect all the license/transaction
fees) though I hope they don't succede ;) It would be more interesting if a
more open company setup a repository of open/license free schemas and
advocated it to the specific industrys. If that were to happen then Web
Services would be a success regardless of any technical concerns ;)
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
