… to the cottage for a couple of weeks. Not an IP packet in sight.
For those following the recent WS-Addressing hullabaloo, I just sent my latest thoughts to the WS-Addressing WG.
18Aug
Bound by bindings
Filed in Uncategorized Leave a comment
Here’s a simple question for WS-* advocates; how does one take a SOAP envelope/infoset generated by the WS-Addressing SOAP binding, and send it via the SOAP 1.2 default HTTP binding? Should be trivial, right? Let’s see. Here’s an example envelope (from the WS-A spec);
<S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
<S:Header>
<wsa:MessageID>http://example.com/6B29FC40-CA47-1067-B31D-00DD010662DA</wsa:MessageID>
<wsa:ReplyTo>
<wsa:Address>http://example.com/business/client1</wsa:Address>
</wsa:ReplyTo>
<wsa:To>http://example.com/fabrikam/Purchasing</wsa:To>
<wsa:Action>http://example.com/fabrikam/SubmitPO</wsa:Action>
</S:Header>
<S:Body>
...
</S:Body>
</S:Envelope>
That envelope contains both a wsa:To and wsa:Action header, which are, respectively, where the message is to be sent, and the action that is requested be done. Now, off in SOAP/HTTP land, we have a set of properties of the default binding which are required in order to construct a SOAP/HTTP message. Amoungst these properties are ImmediateDestination - “where the envelope is to be sent” – and then either Action or Web-Method (or both – who knows?!) which define the – you guessed it – “the action that is requested be done”. So, you’d think that WS-Addressing would have to define how to populate those properties from a WS-A infoset, ideally as a function of things like wsa:To and wsa:Action. AFAICT, it doesn’t.
And to think this think got to CR?! Egads.
The concept of a “SOAP binding” is prima facie broken because it necessarily requires treating underlying protocols as transport protocols, as if the SOAP envelope was actually a SOAP message (hint: it isn’t). WS-Addressing should either a) map the relevant part of its infoset to the property model of the default SOAP/HTTP binding (e.g. wsa:To -> SOAP’s ImmediateDestination), or b) define a new SOAP/HTTP binding that does the same thing, should problems be found reusing the default binding.
16Aug
Aggregators are splogs?
Filed in Uncategorized Leave a comment
Whats a splog ? A splog is any blog whose creator doesnt add any written value. Im sure some might argue that packaging data , such as news feeds or the blog posts of others is added value. I dont think it is. After all, thats why there are topics and indexes. If I want information about the Dallas Mavericks, I can search for it, optimize it, and save it. Because indexes are based on freshness, my searches are automatically updated, freshest data first, as new posts are introduced.
Gotta disagree with him there, in particular where he says “A splog is any blog whose creator doesnt add any written value”, as that would include useful aggregators such as Planet Web 2.0. With these aggregators, value is added not just by content, but also by the aggregation itself. For example, while it’s true that, today, a subscription to Planet Web 2.0 will provide me the same content as if I’d just subscribed to the individual feeds it’s subscribed too, I get something else by subscribing to the aggregate; I’m buying into Ian‘s view of the Web 2.0 world for perpetuity, including the removal of feeds he feels are no longer relevant, as well as new ones he finds that he feels are relevant (temporally varying membership function anyone? 8-).
Search helps too, as Mark correctly points out. I’m subscribed to a number of Technorati/Bloglines searches. But there’s a lot of noise there which doesn’t make them a viable solution in the general case, IMO.
My time is valuable. If I can use the trust I have for Ian’s opinions to turn an O(N) integration complexity problem into an O(1) one, I’m so there.
15Aug
Blueprints will cover both ‘macho’ and non-macho SOA | SOA: Service-Oriented Architecture | ZDNet.com
Filed in Uncategorized Leave a comment
‘Matsumura says the technical committee intends to stay above the fray of what constitutes a “proper” SOA, and work to define the architectures that people have up and running.’ Bravo.
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]
15Aug
Web respect
Filed in Uncategorized Leave a comment
Rule of thumb; any article or paper on distributed computing that lists integration technologies such as DCOM, CORBA, or RMI, without mentioning the Web, probably isn’t worth your time.
13Aug
AdWords API Blog: Save bandwidth by getting your reports compressed on the wire
Filed in Uncategorized Leave a comment
“Google servers support gzip encoding, but only for certain HTTP User-Agents.”. Bug!
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]
13Aug
Peter Williams’ Weblog : Blog Archive : Being Your User
Filed in Uncategorized Leave a comment
“Applications that do not have a RESTful web interface are pure, unmitigated evil.[...] There are, of course, exceptions but the application you are working on is not one of them.” Nicely said.
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]
12Aug
Horse before cart, except after ..?
Filed in Uncategorized Leave a comment
Via Radovan, a slide set that makes some odd and ambiguous claims (granted, it is just a slide set), including this doozy;
Projects and enterprises should define their Service Architecture FIRST
Requirements and process need to be in the context of that architecture
Geez, and folks rag on me for claiming that the Web is a far more general solution than believed; apparently, you can just assume SOA for all problems, independent of their requirements! Think of all the time saved actually trying to fit a solution to the requirements of the problem! 8-)
I can only assume this is an error.
11Aug
Whitespace
Filed in Uncategorized Leave a comment
Via Don Box. Somebody has way too much time on their hands. Note also, the similarity to Make. 8-)
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]
(link) [del.icio.us/distobj]