Nick Gall wades into the WS-* debate
Posted by Dan Creswell in Architecture, Enterprise Systems, TechnologyNick Gall (Gartner) has published a position paper on WS-* and The Web. This statement has drawn quite a lot of attention:
“Unfortunately, Web Services, at least the WS-* style, are “Web” in name only. While WS-* enables tunneling over HTTP (used merely as an XML message transport), in almost every important aspect, WS-* violates (or at best ignores) the architectural principles of the Web as described in the W3C’s Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One and in Tim Berners-Lee’s personal design notes.”
Personally I find this statement completely unsurprising as all it really says is that The Web is not the same is WS-*. Perhaps some people are upset because WS-* aka Web Services dares to make use of the word Web. That might even be a reasonable complaint but does it really matter? It seems to me that this part of the paper is a lot more incendiary and far more significant:
“The large set of WS-* specifications is almost entirely focused on recreating traditional middleware capabilities using XML as the syntax for the formal message structure and the formal interface description.”
Which appears to be saying (at least to me) that WS-* is nothing new and thus all the hype about how it’s a great step forward starts to look rather lame. That’s not to say WS-* won’t have it’s uses but it’s no more of a cure-all than The Web or anything else.
[Update: Bill has clarified the posting I link to above, stating that his interest is in the fact that the likes of Gartner are acknowledging that The Web does indeed have an architecture.]
Technorati Tags: architecture, distributed systems, technology
Entries (RSS)
Well if Gartner says its true…..
But seriously anyone who is saying that WS-* is a massive leap is missing the point. The reason they are a step forward is that people are agreeing on interface, communication and integration standards in a way that hasn’t happened before. 802.11x isn’t a revolution but its market impact has been.
The technology isn’t important, it doesn’t even have to be good, its about its ability to make a market impact. The problem is that people keep pushing technology rather than trying to push the value.
I think the interesting bit about Nick’s position paper is not the statement that WS-* and the Web are different things, but rather that since “web” services have nothing to do with the Web, then the World Wide Web Consortium should have nothing to do with web services. That’s huge.
“The technology isn’t important, it doesn’t even have to be good, its about its ability to make a market impact. The problem is that people keep pushing technology rather than trying to push the value.”
Agreed tho’ I think many an architect or developer is just as much a problem because they continue to get excited about technology. Either they allow themselves to be washed away by hype or they consider the tech in isolation of any meaningful business problem.
ADHD is indeed the biggest problem in….
Oooooh string….
What was I saying again?
Hi Pete,
“……….since “web” services have nothing to do with the Web, then the World Wide Web Consortium should have nothing to do with web services. That’s huge.”
Yep, in the name of balanced reporting I should’ve drawn some attention to this as well but, is it huge? Do you feel the W3C should ever have been involved in the effort? I think it’s big that W3C is maybe moving on but I think it’s even bigger to consider how much effort they and others have wasted on a not-so-giant step forward?
I have the damnedest time posting comments to your blog. 2nd try.
“Do you feel the W3C should ever have been involved in the effort?”
Well, the W3C is a lot of things these days, so I suppose there’s room to work on any number of technologies. However, if the W3C were to remain true to its name and founding principles, then no. As soon as it became apparent that web services were not of the web, in fact break the web, they should have stopped. But that’s water under the bridge. It’s not the first time that someone went down the wrong road.
The larger point is this. The W3C imprimatur on the SOAP/WSDL (as well as addressing, policy, etc.) standards is important. What happens if, as Nick calls for, the W3C removes their backing? Are these things still standards? Will corporate IT and ISVs continue to move forward with SOAP/WS-*? Wouldn’t enterprise customers, rightly or wrongly, see this as a slight towards the effectiveness of this technology. And, should the W3C put renewed emphasis behind REST, wouldn’t that raise awareness, at the very least, of this style of systems design.
Or, maybe, the W3C doesn’t matter anymore.
Hi Pete,
“I have the damnedest time posting comments to your blog. 2nd try.”
Tell me what’s up - your first comment went through moderation, this one has gone straight through - let me know, I’ll fit it. Email me on dan ^at^ dancres ^dot^ org.
“And, should the W3C put renewed emphasis behind REST, wouldn’t that raise awareness, at the very least, of this style of systems design…………………….Or, maybe, the W3C doesn’t matter anymore. ”
Well, I think the W3C matters but the question is to whom? I have a suspicion that W3C is seen by most to be about “Web stuff” and so the enterprisey’s ignore it. Hence the whole “REST isn’t suitable for the enterprise” excuse. REST is basically coming from the wrong party - were REST to be out of IBM or Sun or BEA or the JCP I suspect there’d be a lot more traction.
So, I suspect that W3C putting extra emphasis on REST will help little as most enterprisey’s are focused elsewhere buying the WS-* stacks because they look a lot like what they’re used to. They would claim they’re thinking outside the box but we know different.
Very sad…….