I think Jorgen
misses
part of the point of the
team comment
for WS-Transfer, when he writes;

The W3C Staff comments on WS-Transfer make interesting reading – and really summarize what WS-Transfer is all about: […] WS-Transfer does not have all the features of HTTP regarding the manipulation of representations, such as caching, or content and language negotiation. However, the extensibility of SOAP would allow to add such capabilities incrementally, and it can benefit from the use of existing SOAP extensions such as WS-Security for security, or WS-Reliability or WS-Reliable Messaging for reliability.

How can it be a good thing, that all those features were lost and
replaced with … wait for it … merely the opportunity to add
them back in the future?! Do these folks realize the amount of money
that’s been spent optimizing and deploying the Web, CDNs, and caching
infrastructure in general? You think people are eager to redeploy all
that? And for what, angle brackets?

Egads. Whether you believe in my position on Web services or not,
hopefully you can at least appreciate that reuse and not
reinvention is in everybody’s best interest. The authors of WS-Transfer
clearly don’t. There’s even
better ways
to use SOAP for data transfer, ferchrisakes!

I’m calling bullshit on WS-Transfer. Please join me.

P.S. here’s some
previous thoughts
on this mess, before the W3C submission, when I was obviously in a
much more agreeable mood. I guess I’m pissed off at the W3C for missing
yet another opportunity to set these wayward soles straight.

Update; Thanks, Simon.
Go, Mark. Even
Rob can’t help himself.
Kudos, Stefan.

Tags:
soap,
rest,
web,
webservices.

Trackback

no comment until now

Add your comment now