Slashdot Mirror
Web Services
Erik Sliman writes "Why are all the IT companies suddenly interested in open standards with web services? An OpenStandards.net
article explores the issues surrounding the somewhat vague term."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
In today's world, connectivity is key. You pick up a phone and expect to be able to call any other phone on earth (granted, it may be expensive or hard, but it is possible), no matter if it's in another country, company, if it's a celular or a satelite phone.
That expectation moves to the Net. If you're going to hire net services, you expect to have a unified system that will allow you to do anything with one interfase, one bill, from anywhere.
Now, I can only see two posibilities for that to happen. One is Microsoft, but fortunately I see a trend where less companies are willing to empower the BMFH (Bastard Monopoly From Hell). The other is open standards.
And yes, this is a Good Thing (TM).
OTOH, HTTP is pervasive. So are HTTP clients. It's the "write once, run anywhere" model that Sun's been pushing with Java for so many years. You run the app in one place (on your server), and it's accessible to anyone with a computer and a modem. It even works on PDAs, phones, etc with a minimum of effort. I'll be the first to agree that HTTP isn't the best way of doing things for most apps, but the industry has never been about "best". It's about "good enough" and market penetration.
Designing your own protocol takes time, and implementing it for each OS/hardware combo out there takes even more time. Why bother to do that, when you can leverage a protocol (HTTP) and client software (browsers) that are already everywhere?
From management's point of view, web services are a no-brainer....
Not companies routinely make information available to the Internet, and routinely make use of information that other companies provide. Unfortunately, lots of times this is more difficult than necessary since all the information is formatted in pretty web pages for people to see.
Web services just means that you are providing the same data in a format for other companies' programs to use. This is an excellent idea, particularly when you can charge for providing the data.
This was always the idea behind CORBA, but I think people didn't get it because since both ends of the communication were to be programs, it was too abstract. Now that people do these kinds of information exchanges everyday with web servers and browsers, it's much clearer what the point was all along.
Web services takes the CORBA idea and adds the web momentum. You leverage the communication infrastructure built for the web. SOAP is a hell of a lot less efficient than IIOP, though.
Before I begin, I want to make clear that I'm an XML skeptic. To me, XML is nothing more than formatted text -- utterly devoid of value until two or more parties agree on a shared vocabulary (in the form of a DTD or Schema).
;)
To be simple, CORBA is too entirely too complex. Until recently, even Orbix's (the lead vendor of the pack) offerings have been extremely "flexible" with their degree of compliance to the CORBA spec; Orbix 2.x had CORBA 1.x and 2.x features side by side without any clear delineation of which feature was compliant with which spec.
EJB is respectable if you're a CORBA or RMI shop.
Now, let's be realistic. HTTP is already there. It works. Sure, it's not stateful but, historically, people have been kluging statefulness in using cookies for years. XML isn't necessarily ideal but, if you want to be programming language indepent then you have to choose some sort of format. Why not formatted plain text? Sure, it's a little wasteful on the bandwidth but it's flexable.
To the above mix, we just add UDDI in place of a JNDI or CosNaming and away you go.
Sounds nice in principle but I have yet to see it in practice.
So, you think you know security, but anything that's tunneled through HTTP/HTTPS is OK with you? You really don't understand security.
SOAP et al are a mistaken implementation for exactly that reason, in a typical Microsoft fashion: by running everything over HTTP, we can get things working quickly without wondering whether they are secure. Later on, there will be a ton of SOAP security holes and information leaks, but we won't be able to plug the hole properly since we can't cut off HTTP without strangling our businesses. I love innovation without cogitation.
An absolute godsend to good firewall administrators would be to have specific services on specific ports so that you could easily audit the use of such services separately and have a better handle on what's going in and out of your 'net. You could, for example, inspect SOAP packets for a particular service without having to slow down all traffic through your HTTP proxy. But since you're a lazy bastard, I bet you don't care :)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Hey Erik, nice ad:
Organization:
Joshua Branch
Erik Sliman
1449 Larchmont Ave., Dn
Lakewood, OH 44107
US
Phone: 216 228-7361
Email: erik(at)joshuabranch.org
Registrar Name: Register.com
Registrar Whois: whois.register.com
Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com
Domain Name: OPENSTANDARDS.NET
Created on: Fri, Dec 17, 1999
Expires on: Sun, Dec 17, 2006
Record last updated on: Wed, Mar 06, 2002
Administrative Contact:
Joshua Branch
Erik Sliman
1449 Larchmont Ave., Dn
Lakewood, OH 44107
US
Phone: 216 228-7361
Email: erik(at)joshuabranch.org
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Register.Com
Domain Registrar
575 8th Avenue - 11th Floor
New York, NY 10018
US
Phone: 902-749-2701
Fax: 902-749-5429
Email: domain-registrar(at)register.com
Domain servers in listed order:
DNS13.REGISTER.COM 209.67.50.208
DNS14.REGISTER.COM 209.67.50.209
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.