New-age Transactional Systems - Not Your Grandpa's OLTP
John Hugg discusses high volume transaction processing applications with high and low frequency profiles, and how VoltDB can be used for that purpose.
News
The content has been bookmarked!
There was an error bookmarking this content! Please retry.
Navigating WS-*
Posted by Stefan Tilkov on May 14, 2007
The document provides an excellent overview of the most important standards from the vast Web services landscape, and explains how they can be used in practice to solve real-world problems. Topics addressed include useful combinations of standards, interoperability and platform support, and expectations for future developments.
- This article is part of a featured topic series on SOA
- See more SOA content at: http://www.infoq.com/soa
- Other recent content items in this topic
WS-RX: durability?
by
Guy Crets
Posted
Re: WS-RX: durability?
by
Dan Diephouse
Posted
Re: WS-RX: durability?
by
Mark Little
Posted
Interoperability lists
by
Mark Little
Posted
Re: Interoperability lists
by
Dan Diephouse
Posted
No WS-Transactions :-(
by
Mark Little
Posted
Re: No WS-Transactions :-(
by
Mark Little
Posted
WS-A and WAS 6.1
by
David Illsley
Posted
oxymoron
by
Maurizio Turatti
Posted
-
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.
9 comments
Watch Thread Reply