Tracking change and innovation in the enterprise software development community
Terracotta:
Scale your
Apps w/ease
Offload the DB:
Learn More!
Testing Tools to
Support Agile
Software Delivery
Whitepaper
Defy all
Challenges.
Microsoft®
Visual Studio
2008
Posted by Stefan Tilkov on May 14, 2007 02:11 PM
Dan Diephouse, who runs the Web services consulting company Envoi Solutions, created the XFire SOAP stack and is one of the lead developers of the Apache CXF Web services project (which is currently in incubation status), has published a paper entitled "Navigating WS-* (PDF)".The Key to SOA Governance: Understanding the Essence of Business
Testing Tools to Support Agile Software Delivery
Webcast: Applying lean thinking to the governance of software development
Six Free Project Management Certification Training Courses
The Agile Business Analyst: Skills and Techniques needed for Agile
Very nice article. One remark: WS-ReliableMessaging provides reliability on top of HTTP. But unfortunately, the spec says nothing about durability. Almost no WS-RM implementation persists messages to disk and re-delivers message in case of e.g. a system restart. Therefore, WS-RM is not a replacement for JMS (yet). Nor for all the other protocols used on the Internet to communicate reliably between business partners such as EDIINT/AS2, (S)FTP(S), RosettaNet, ...
PS: really enjoyed your talk at Javapolis '06, which is now available on www.parleys.com
Greetings from Belgium, Guy Crets (Apogado)
Hi Guy, thanks for the feedback and kind words on the talk. You make an excellent point. Maybe the next version of the document should include a matrix with the durability support for each framework.
It would be a better idea to show which products/projects have participated in the various interoperability workshops. For example, just because project XYZ says it "supports" WS-A Candidate Recommendation Foo doesn't mean it's actually interoperable with the implementation from company ABC. People mis-read specifications. Some specifications have optional features that may affect interoperability. That's the reason we have these various interoperability events.
Nice paper. But no mention of WS-Transactions. I'm gutted ;-)
It would be a better idea to show which products/projects have participated in the various interoperability workshops. For example, just because project XYZ says it "supports" WS-A Candidate Recommendation Foo doesn't mean it's actually interoperable with the implementation from company ABC. People mis-read specifications. Some specifications have optional features that may affect interoperability. That's the reason we have these various interoperability events.
100% agreed that just because there is a checkbox, doesn't mean the framework is fully interoperable. Adding a section on interop workshops might be an interesting way to show this, but that may border on too much detail for people. Maybe the matrices should include an asterisk saying that a specific project/product did not participate or did not pass interop with flying colors?
It'd help if more specs had test-suites as well. WS-A 1.0 does this, so you can have some idea about basic support (although I'm not sure how much). Test suites might be more meaningful in the WS-SX area where the scenarios are much more involved and you aren't sure how much of the spec each framework supports. I don't think that those frameworks that claim to implement Trust/SecureConversation handle every possible feature/use case.
Another thought is to turn this documentation into a wiki. In addition to making the content much more web friendly, it might let people comment on specific interoperability issues that people run into.
BTW, with my Technical Committee hat on, WS-Policy is in W3C not OASIS ;-)
This is incorrect. However, rather than rant myself, I'll let Paul make the point: www.bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle?id=34
I like the doc, really clear.
Just FYI, since the first fixpack (6.1.0.1), WAS 6.1 has had support for WS-A 2006/05.
Actually "real-world problems" and "WS-*" is an oxymoron. All this WS-* stuff is becoming a solution in search of a problem...
Cheers,
M.
Aptana RadRails: An IDE for Rails Development by Javier Ramírez discusses the latest Aptana RadRails IDE, a development environment for creating Ruby on Rails applications.
Cliff Click discusses how to optimize generated bytecode for running on the JVM. Click analyzes and reports on several JVM languages and shows several places where they could increase performance.
Scott Ambler, Practice Lead for Agile Development at IBM, speaks on the current status of the Agile community and practices having a look at the perspective of the Agile’s future.
Dave Nicolette and Karl Scotland try to introduce non-technical managers to one of the most popular Agile development techniques: Test-Driven Development (TDD).
Smooks is best known for its transformation capabilities, but in this article Tom Fennelly describes how you can also use it for structured event streaming.
Successful architectures evolve over time to meet changing business requirements. Luke Hohmann presents how to collaborate with key members of your business to manage architectural changes.
In this article, Dr. Tobias Komischke explains how colors used in a GUI can influence our interaction with a computer and offers advice on using the appropriate colors for the interface.
In his presentation, recorded at QCon San Francisco, MuleSource architect Dan Diephouse explores ways to use the Atom Publishing Protocol (AtomPub) when building services in a RESTful way.
9 comments
Reply