Via a friend, an interesting
project
with an interesting description;
This model, known as the ERP5 Universal Business Model, makes it possible to reuse code by abstracting away from the specific domain and encapsulating the generic relationships and actions common to many business processes.
Awesome idea! Gee, if only somebody would do that for the Internet! 8-)
Another
gem
from Dave;
This is the main thesis of this article, that the application layer modeling is affected by the underlying protocol.
Absolutely. I think the leaks that Dave so accurately describes
there, is, largely, his fault (but a Very Good Thing! 8-). He has
tried to respect the
architecture of the Web
in his work on Web services, and as a result, created the problems he
now describes, along with everybody else who ever pushed to defend a
principle or constraint of Web architecture, including myself. I was
very frankly surprised that it took this long for a Web services
proponent to point it out, but I’ve been
doing it
for a while (and long before that post – it’s just the most succinct description
I could recall of the layering problems with Web services, albeit
slightly different ones than Dave’s describing).
He goes on…
Another possibility is to throw out anything “extra” from the underlying protocol, that is effectively dumbing HTTP down to UDP.
Yes, that’s the only way that what most Web services proponents know
“protocol independence” to mean, could be realized, and the leaky
abstractions Dave speaks of, avoided.
The next sentence reads;
Web services using SOAP and WSDL 1.1 has already done that by ignoring the HTTP Operation.
Right. And as I mention in the above mentioned
post,
there’s more than just the operation which is ignored, including the Request-URI when using
wsa:To, and the response code when assuming
any response with a SOAP fault element is a fault.
Unfortunately, at that point, Dave apparently reiterates his undying
faith in this beast of an architecture, and attempts to resolve this
fundamental problem within it. Ouch!
There is another way; embrace the Web.
Oh, and all this reminds me that
Steve Vinoski
and I just had a great
chat
where we came to agree on what was and wasn’t desirable to do in the name of
“protocol independence”.
Can you think of a
cuter
way to present a
reported breakthrough
in storage density improvement?
Hmm, that first character reminds me of somebody… Who could it
be? Ah, right; Bill.
Inaccurate (“ruthless disregard for unpleasant facts” seems to be the purvey of SOA proponents), but very funny nonetheless 8-)
(
link) [
del.icio.us/distobj]