{"id":1953,"date":"2007-09-20T00:28:14","date_gmt":"2007-09-20T04:28:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.markbaker.ca\/blog\/2007\/09\/20\/fence-sitting-arguments\/"},"modified":"2007-09-20T00:28:14","modified_gmt":"2007-09-20T04:28:14","slug":"fence-sitting-arguments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.markbaker.ca\/blog\/2007\/09\/fence-sitting-arguments\/","title":{"rendered":"Fence sitting arguments"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/markclittle.blogspot.com\/2007\/09\/some-comments-around-rest-and.html\">Mark Little responds<\/a> to an\n<a href=\"http:\/\/bill.burkecentral.com\/2007\/09\/18\/distributed-compensation-with-rest-and-jbpm\">interesting post<\/a> by Bill Burke about compensation based transactions.  I don&#8217;t really have any direct response to the gist of that discussion, but wanted to highlight a couple of Mark&#8217;s arguments that I consider to be probably the top two arguments by those who feel there&#8217;s value in both the Web and Web services (the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.markbaker.ca\/blog\/2006\/08\/13\/the-unsittable-fence\/\">&#8220;fence sitters&#8221;<\/a>, as Mark recalls me calling them 8-).<\/p>\n\n<p>First up, the belief that the Web has nothing to say about reliability, transactions, etc&#8230;  Mark writes;<\/p>\n\n<blockquote cite=\"http:\/\/markclittle.blogspot.com\/2007\/09\/some-comments-around-rest-and.html\">\nYes, we have interoperability on the WWW (ignoring the differences in HTML syntax and browsers). But we do not have interoperabilty for transactions, reliable messaging, workflow etc. That&#8217;s not to say we can&#8217;t do it: as I said before, we did manage to do REST+transactions in HP but it was in a small-scale deployment involving only a couple of partners. There is no technical impediment to doing this: it&#8217;s entirely political. It can be done, I just don&#8217;t see it ever being done. Until it happens, REST\/HTTP cannot compete with the kinds of heterogeneous out-of-the-box interoperability that we have demonstrated with WS-*\n<\/blockquote>\n\n<p>I&#8217;ve talked about this a lot, most recently in my <a href=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2007\/01\/wos-papers\/coactus\">position paper<\/a> to the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2006\/10\/wos-ec-cfp.html\">W3C Workshop on Enterprise Services<\/a>.  The gist of the argument is that the Web address <em>all<\/em> of those needs, just in a way which you might not recognize because it has to address them within the confines of architectural constraints that Web services folks aren&#8217;t used to.  Again, that&#8217;s not to say that <em>every<\/em> possible one of your needs can be met out of the box today, only that far more of them can than you might believe.<\/p>\n\n<p>Mark also uses the very common argument that because interoperability requires agreement on data for both Web and Web services, that there&#8217;s no significant difference between them (I hope that summarizes his point);<\/p>\n\n<blockquote cite=\"http:\/\/markclittle.blogspot.com\/2007\/09\/some-comments-around-rest-and.html\">\nSo just because I decide to use REST and HTTP doesn&#8217;t mean I get instant portability and interoperability. Yes, I get interoperability at the low level, but it says nothing about interoperability at the payload.\n<\/blockquote>\n\n<p>I can&#8217;t quickly find any past blog entries that touch on this point (though I know they&#8217;re there), but this argument I find the most confusing.  I suspect it has to do with what I perceive to be a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.markbaker.ca\/blog\/2004\/10\/29\/protocol-independence\/\">disconnect between Internet and intranet protocol stacks<\/a>, but I can&#8217;t say for sure.<\/p>\n\n<p>What Mark calls the &#8220;low level&#8221; isn&#8217;t the low level at all.  Assuming he means HTTP, the agreement you get by using it is <em>more<\/em> (higher level) agreement than you get if you were just using SOAP (or XML-RPC or IIOP or BEEP or &#8230;).  That&#8217;s because you&#8217;re agreeing on the methods <em>in addition<\/em> to an envelope (not to mention many other features).<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Mark Little responds to an interesting post by Bill Burke about compensation based transactions. I don&#8217;t really have any direct response to the gist of that discussion, but wanted to highlight a couple of Mark&#8217;s arguments that I consider to be probably the top two arguments by those who feel there&#8217;s value in both the [&hellip;]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[22,26,34,40],"class_list":["post-1953","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-rest","tag-soap","tag-w3c","tag-xml"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.markbaker.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1953","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.markbaker.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.markbaker.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.markbaker.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.markbaker.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1953"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.markbaker.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1953\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.markbaker.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.markbaker.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.markbaker.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}