Comments on: The Web Services Proxy Concept

By: Gerke Geurts

Gerke Geurts — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:02:06 +0000

I think proxies are still useful to invoke web services to allow an easy programming model that facilitates the serialisation and transmission of service invocations. What we must not expect is to get back an answer while the code that invoked the service is alive, i.e. the proxy should not wait for a service reply. In fact you would need to restrict the proxy possibilities to everything you are allowed to do when invoking COM+ queued components.

How than can a service consumer handle response messages? The service consumer will have to be a service himself, offering operations that the service provider can invoke to communicate back results of the original service invocation.

By: Jorgen Thelin

Jorgen Thelin — Wed, 11 Jun 2003 06:23:40 +0000

I posted some comments in my weblog here:

http://www.thearchitect.co.uk/weblog/archives/2003/06/000173.html

- Jorgen

By: Christian Weyer

Christian Weyer — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 11:37:29 +0000

OK, now that we are allowed to talk about it: just read Ingo’s comment on WSE 2.0
http://www.ingorammer.com/weblog/archives/001293.html

By: Tomas Restrepo

Tomas Restrepo — Fri, 06 Jun 2003 08:01:15 +0000

Chris: I don't think navigating the DOM manually is necessarily a better option, but I think something else, more closely mapped to messaging semantics, could be a better way. I'm not sure what yet, but I have some ideas I hope to explore soon!

Christian: Yes! That's pretty much what I'm looking for!

By: Sebastien Lambla

Sebastien Lambla — Fri, 06 Jun 2003 05:53:50 +0000

See url

By: Christian Weyer

Christian Weyer — Fri, 06 Jun 2003 01:04:35 +0000

Of course I can understand your sentiments, Tomas. But perhaps – at least for the HTTP-branded moment – we should just make a difference between the messaging model and the programming model …? Doc/literal would make perfectly more sense with a real messaging infrastructure, i.e. with an asynchronous, decoupled communication layer. I like the idea of mapping SOAP over MSMQ. And then just use ‘bare’ SOAP messages ([SoapDocumentMethod(ParameterStyle = SoapParameterStyle.Bare)]
) – then we are a bit closer to what you are looking, I guess?

By: Chris Brooks

Chris Brooks — Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:45:18 +0000

I see your point about the temptation these tools create, but I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with the mapping/serialization that I get with a strong development platform. Is navigating a DOM or issuing XPATH queries supposed to make me feel better? I guess I’m trying to understand what you would propose is better.

By: Simon Fell

Simon Fell — Thu, 05 Jun 2003 10:48:37 +0000

Yeah, I've been saying for a while that doc/lit as most people do it (i.e. the default ASP.NET stuff), is RPC is everything but name.

Have you thought about what a non-RPC programming model would look like (starting from WSDL) ?