Simon Fell > Its just code
New Jakarta PMC results. Got reelected. Mustn't have pissed too many people off. 
[Sam Ruby's Radio Weblog] Guess you'll just have to try harder this year Sam !, congrats.
Peter has a little "language gumbo" brainteaser for you. I won't spoil it by posting the answer.
"A little more digging reveals that SOAP-RP, DIME, and XLANG (BizTalk's dialect) were all sent as a batch to the W3C by Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, to illustrate "some ideas in the area of SOAP routing, message encapsulation, and process orchestration."
I thought there were IBM fingerprints on this stuff too, but maybe not (yet)?" [Jon's Radio]
IBM have similar offerings with HTTPR & WSFL [no equivilent to DIME as far as I know]. HTTPR takes a different approach to WS-Routing, in that it tunnels a reliable message exchange over HTTP [I wonder what the REST guys make of that]. Whilst WS-Routing takes a more layered approach, WS-Routing on its own doesn't provide reliablity, but provides the bits needs to make a reliable exchange layer. HTTPR doesn't appear to provide any routing information, so is still limited to point 2 point scenarios. Inermediaries seem to be one of the more useful features of SOAP, which is why I wrote some WS-Routing code a while back. I think classic queue based middleware such as MSMQ, MQSeries and JMS are going to rule the reliable delivery situations for quite a while yet.
I disagree with some of Paul Prescod's notions about XML and Web services. In particular, I'm not sure how much of REST applies to the "real" Web. In fairness though, I have to say that I haven't completely made up my mind on this. [KeithBa's Blog]
I've been thinking about this as well [can't seem to get away from it at the minute, everywhere i turn I see either Paul Prescod or Mark Baker posting about REST]. I understand the desire to have SOAP be able to use GET, but mapping a complete SOAP Infoset into HTTP seems kinda pointless, once you throw out the trivial [and broken] stock quote example eveyone uses. One thing I'm strugling with is the whole idempotent GETs vs POST thing, How come the client is the one saying if a request is idempotent or not ?, surely the server is in a much better position to make that assertion ? The one method per URI is an interesting point, I can see an argument for that, but WSDL will need to be changed to cope [or endup with 1 method per portType].
[...] Now here's an interesting connection. MS has a proposal on the table called WS-Routing. It sketches out the framework within which loosely-coupled systems will route SOAP messages that are handled in the doc/literal style, rather than the rpc/encoded style. [Jon's Radio]
Nothing in WS-Routing requries doc/literal bodies, yes the WS-Routing header itself is doc/literal, but the SOAP Body can be anything. A few of us over on SOAPBuilders had some WS-Routing enabled services, that were handling rpc/enc bodies [the SOAPBuilders interop tests]. Details are in the SOAP-RP archives. [WS-Routing was called SOAP-RP before someone decided all the webservices specs should start with WS]
IONA's Press release for the WSDL Interop F2F. I think I'm pretty much ready, I have tests for groups D & E, and for 1/3 of F. Just need to finish getting my laptop setup, and get packed.
Last update: 2/9/2003; 5:28:37 PM.
