Duane Nickull wrote:
> There are those who think so however I believe that the current WS=* stack
> has surpassed ebXML in terms of functionality and readiness. (01)
Our recent experience tells us that is not really true. Basic
webservices are now pretty much interoperable over a dozen or so
different libraries and app servers, .net typically being an exception. (02)
But the communications capabilities you need for business includes
Service Addressing, Reliable Messaging, and Basic Security = encryption
and signature. Addressing usually works, interoperable reliable
messaging works on a few platforms, basic security is nearly
non-existent (.net being the exception). So, no, 8 years later, the
technical community still has not stepped up to defining, developing and
implementing the needed standards to support e-business. (03)
(And part of the reason for the problem is that these additional
communications requirements are not something you can wrap inside a SOAP
message, so you can just use your off-the-shelf WSDL/SOAP implementation
and add on to it. These aspects must be integrated into the SOAP
wrapper and the SOAP library. All the solid Webservice implementations
were just SOAP versions of CORBA, DCOM or Java/RMI, and to integrate
these services they had to be redesigned, and they had to work around
HTTP, which is an encumbrance for peer-to-peer communication.) (04)
> The WS world
> basically absorbed the ebXML functionality so it is not dead, it just lives
> on in that form.
>
> Having another stack is probably a waste of effort if one works now. (05)
This I completely agree with, in both regards. If we are going to get
the envisaged functionalities (or whatever is really needed), they will
be built over "webservices", because it is at least the nominal and de
facto standard. And the last thing we need right now is yet another
messaging standard. The sequence DCE - CORBA - Java/RMI - SOAP
(webservices) was all about securing niches for vendors without
providing any real change in functionality (although one does see some
progress in lifting the designers' noses out of the bits). ebMS was
just yet another, and the only reason it isn't on the list was its
timing -- anyone who didn't build to WSDL/SOAP was guaranteed to lose
their market to Microsoft and IBM. (06)
One other observation. AFAIK, almost all commercial use of webservices
in 2007 "outside the walls" (where interoperability counts) was purely
as wrappers for structured messages, a la EDIFACT, OAGIS, etc. And that
is what distinguished ebMS from the "remote procedure call" (aka "object
interface") concepts in the "webservice" forerunners. The SOAP standard
supports both -- what goes "on the wire" for a remote procedure call is
a structured message. (07)
-Ed (08)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 (09)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (011)
|