Monthly Archives: January 2005

Gudge chimes in

Gudge chimes in on the WS-A issue; The WS-Addressing spec doesn’t say that you *can’t* put the content of wsa:Address into ‘the “RCPT TO” command on the SMTP protocol’. It just says you MUST put it into the wsa:To SOAP header. I wonder why Mark thought the two were mutually exclusive… I can understand the… Read More »

MoCo Loco: Spacebox

I saw these things – or something just like them – in Dusseldorf. Too bad I was in a taxi so didn’t have time to snap a picture. Funky! (link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

Steve Maine on the new TAG issue

Steve takes issue with the issue. 8-) He starts with a paragraph which very accurately summarizes the issue, and then goes on to explain why he believes that it would be a mistake for the TAG to “make a short-sighted decision in the direction that Mark is proposing”. First though, a quick response to that… Read More »

WS-Addresing TAG issue accepted

Issue accepted. As usual, Roy nailed it; seems the direction of all ws specs is to be binding neutral, but no statement that a given binding is required so entirely separate architectures all described as web services

Web services for the REST of us, part 2

“But the low overhead also means that REST doesn’t include built-in security and reliability, so it’s not well-suited for enterprise use, particularly between business partners or for e-commerce.”. Sigh. (link) [del.icio.us/distobj]

Less options = good

Bill deHora comments on Mnot’s latest, saying this about something he heard somebody say; He has a nice comment near the end on how having less options can be a good thing. I didn’t hear the interview, but yah, absolutely. It’s arguably the fundamental theorem of design (all design, not just software design). But we… Read More »