BT

Navigating WS-*

by Stefan Tilkov on May 14, 2007 |
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 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.

Hello stranger!

You need to Register an InfoQ account or to post comments. But there's so much more behind being registered.

Get the most out of the InfoQ experience.

Tell us what you think

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

WS-RX: durability? by Guy Crets

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)

Re: WS-RX: durability? by Dan Diephouse

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.

Interoperability lists by Mark Little

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.

No WS-Transactions :-( by Mark Little

Nice paper. But no mention of WS-Transactions. I'm gutted ;-)

Re: Interoperability lists by Dan Diephouse

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.

Re: No WS-Transactions :-( by Mark Little

BTW, with my Technical Committee hat on, WS-Policy is in W3C not OASIS ;-)

Re: WS-RX: durability? by Mark Little

This is incorrect. However, rather than rant myself, I'll let Paul make the point: www.bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle?id=34

WS-A and WAS 6.1 by David Illsley

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.

oxymoron by Maurizio Turatti

Actually "real-world problems" and "WS-*" is an oxymoron. All this WS-* stuff is becoming a solution in search of a problem...

Cheers,
M.

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

9 Discuss

Educational Content

General Feedback
Bugs
Advertising
Editorial
InfoQ.com and all content copyright © 2006-2013 C4Media Inc. InfoQ.com hosted at Contegix, the best ISP we've ever worked with.
Privacy policy
BT