Skip to content

They can’t hear you

This is my third attempt at posting over the past few days. The previous two aborted posts were of the SOAP vs. REST, simplicity vs. complexity variety. But I click around and I read a few things and I click around and read some more. And, you know what? It’s all been said before, again and again and again, and better than I ever could. So I’m just going to reference Bill de HÓra’s victory post one more time, and echo it here. The forces of simplicity have won. SOA is dead, SOAP is dead, the WS-Hairball is dead, and it seems even XML Schema is dead. Now begins the age of REST, and Rails, and Microformats, and getting shit done.

Or is it? Maybe you don’t work for or with a Global 2000 company, so I’ll let you in on a little secret: They Can’t Hear You! That’s right, the CIOs, and Enterprise Architechts, and, yes, even the journeyman programmer employed by these firms have no idea that there’s even a discussion going on. I’ve asked them. I really have. It’s what I do for a living. And the typical corporate technologist (broad strokes here, of course I don’t mean you) hasn’t considered REST and decided against it, they haven’t even heard the term. Ditto RelaxNG, Django, Atom, and everything else that makes the Web work and makes working with the Web easy. They don’t read technology blogs, they don’t know who DHH is, and they’re excited to get their new Vista gear.

Why? Two reasons. One is obvious: by and large, enterprise technology professionals know only what IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, and SAP tell them, tempered a bit with what Gartner and Forrester and, yes, Burton Group have to say. And what these companies are saying is SOA, SOA, SOA. Now, I don’t believe for a minute, as some people have suggested, that they are selling complexity because you can’t make money on simplicity (you can, by the way). No, they honestly belive SOAP, SOA, and the WS-Framework is the best way to build and architect distributed systems. And they’re smart people too; my SOA-preaching colleagues at Burton Group are scary smart.

The second is because business-oriented technologist refuse to beleive that simple solutions apply to their problem set. It’s always been complex before, and gosh darnit, it’s gonna stay that way. They want transactions, and reliability, and asynchronous messaging, and orchestration, and everything else. If it doesn’t look like Rendezvous or Tuxedo or BizTalk, then it can’t be a business grade solution, therefore it must be some toy. Closely related to this is the fact that the EJB/CORBA style of development, while not easy, is natural to the corporate developer; that is SOAP looks like what distributed systems are supposed to look like. Certainly no technology that’s been sitting under their noses for the last ten years can ever handle the needs that enterprises have!

So we’ve won and we haven’t. Outside the corporate firewall the message is out. Sure there’s work to be done yet, but people are doing it. Inside the firewall, life goes on as always. It’s this situation that prompted Steve Jones to say Want to be cool? Learn REST. Want a career? Learn WS.. Never has something been so right and so wrong.

Steve is absolutely right that, for the most part, businesses only know what the big vendors tell them. He’s also right in saying that every company will use or encounter web services. It’s sad that this is the “commercial reality.” However, this has always been the case, and while the best technology doesn’t always win, bad technology doesn’t win either. Hailstorm, anyone? He notes that if you want to be employed in three years time, you had better bone up on SOAP web services, with the implication that by that time this technology can be made to work.

And this is where Steve gets it all wrong. Web services won’t be pervasive in three years, for the simple reason that the technology can’t do what its proponents claim it can do. It’s too complex, it’s too poorly specified, it’s caught up in the ever-continuing vendor wars, and it’s simply not the right design for a pervasive and scalable distributed architecture. Yes, web services will be here three years from now, and, yes, there will be a handful of localized successes. But it will not be the all encompassing, enterprise spanning, solution to all your IT needs. It will, in fact, be yet another legacy system to integrate with. In the meantime, if you’re on one “the SOA team” at work, at least you have a few years of guaranteed employment ahead of you.

{ 32 } Comments

  1. Manuzhai | November 30, 2006 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    I’m an intern working at a small Dutch IT company (financial software, actually), and they got the SOA-buzz going around. They want this whole componentized infrastructure that will allow all kinds of different services to talk to their backend. I proposed REST-like interfaces, but instead we’re now doing SOAP. Why? Marketing: SOAP/WSDL are buzzwords, the clients love to hear about them. One of the major clients already does a lot of this with the MS stack. I’ve tried to make the complexity argument, but it all comes down to marketing.

    Now, I’m actually using the NuSOAP PHP stack to implement the server side and the SOAPpy stack to test it, and it occurred to me today that the happily surprised feeling of “Hey, it works!” (which is, admittedly, a little exhilarating) I get every time when I get the correct reply on my Python prompt is a sure-fire way of pointing to a (unnecessarily?) complex stack… With REST(-like) scripts/apps, it’s often much more of an incremental approach, where you edge closer to the desired result on each tiny iteration. Here, it doesn’t work, you fix some more, it still doesn’t work, inspect some other debugging messages and then *CLICK* it works. Which is actually a bad thing.

    (I’m rambling, sorry.)

  2. The Badger | November 30, 2006 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    “They don’t read technology blogs, they don’t know who DHH is”

    We get to envy them for something, then.

  3. Doug K | November 30, 2006 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    I work for what we merry jesters call an “enterprise software” company. This SOA statement seems to me wholly accurate. It’s a little frightening, frankly, the extent to which the enterprise has bought into WS-splat.

    “yet another legacy system to integrate with”
    oy. I hope this is wrong, I have enough to do as it is, generating web services out of Cobol and CICS..

  4. Alex | December 1, 2006 at 12:30 am | Permalink

    I think you’ve got the SOA part wrong; Service orientated Architecture is more an intellectual process an organisation tries to conceptualise, and has nothing to do with what a lot of high-flying vendors *call* SOA. It doesn’t need the WS-Hairball (love the term!) or even HTTP, nor complexity nor consultants telling you what part of the stack your messages need, even though that’s what the big vendors are trying to sell you. They failed calling it other things, so they’re now jumping the SOA bandwagon and re-package their complexities. Don’t buy into the marketing scams as SOA can seriously help whatever it is that you’re trying to do.

  5. Zed | December 1, 2006 at 3:23 am | Permalink

    Well, about a year ago, Om Malik wrote on his blog that TIBCO was going to be a wicked-cool company to watch because of its push for SOA and AJAX tools (e.g., “General Interface”). So here it is a year later, and is TIBX is reporting about $9.30 a share which is about the same price per share one year ago. So take that Gartner et al (and Om Malik who probably has friends who work at Tibco in Silicon Valley) and shove that SOA General Interface complexity b.s. to the cleaners!!

    By the way, Peter Lacey brings up a bunch of great points but I would also argue that startup companies (for those starting a business) are absolutely going to be better off dealing with RESTful stuff that just works and eschewing over-complexity!

  6. Tom-Eric Gerritsen | December 1, 2006 at 3:28 am | Permalink

    You know, I work in a very small company (3 developers), and I run into the same problem all the time. In the end, I almost always lose the battle, because they just don’t want to invest time in learning about new technologies, when the old ones work just fine.

  7. Pete | December 1, 2006 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    Badger: +1 Funny

    Doug K: http://www.neonsys.com/Shadow/Mainframe_Web_Services.asp

    Alex: I respectfully disagree. It’s hard even for SOA advocates to define SOA, but a reasonable definition is that SOA is what IBM, MS, et al tell you it is. In all other respects the term is without meaning. Also, while “SOA” in theory can leverage most any remoting technology, it is in practice married to SOAP web services. Now, if you’re saying that there’s value in a disciplined approach to implementing non-WS-based distributed systems (aka a resource-oriented architecture), then you’re spot on. Just don’t call it SOA.

    Tom-Eric: It actually sounds like you’re in good shape.

  8. Paul Hoffman | December 1, 2006 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    So, who are the “REST vendors” then? Who is selling REST (whatever that means) into the Fortune 2^10?

  9. Pete | December 1, 2006 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    Paul: REST (defined here) is an architectural style. It doesn’t need vendors anymore than, say, the agile approach to development needs vendors. That said, the best realization of REST is HTTP, and therefore anyone making a Web server of a Web-based application server (ala JEE, PHP,etc), is a REST vendor.

    You’re probably looking for something a little more specific, though. And in that case, you’re right, most software vendors are ignoring REST (which was kinda the point of this post). However, Microsoft is getting intereseted and so are others. In the meantime, most REST-specific toolkits are open source. Leading frameworks include the Java Restlet engine and Rails 1.2.

  10. gwhilts | December 1, 2006 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    I work for one of these F500 companies and you’re not too far off.

    A few of us are trying, but convincing my “Enterprise Architecture” team that J2EE and SOA aren’t the answer to *every* problem has been fairly fruitless so far.

  11. Chris Stiles | December 1, 2006 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    IMHO .. every generation of programmers is doomed to relive this attempt to define some kind of ’services architecture’ - an IT version of the groundhog day where we attempt to find an environment which fosters ‘ultimate’ reuse.

    The previous iteration of such attempts ground to a halt because of problems with tooling - and the fact that then exeunt processors meant that everything was so damn slow.

    Now we have tools, but we are approaching two areas that are restatements of other problems; that of complex type inference and that of defining complete and practical formal languages.

    We are chasing after things that won’t be possible in practice for many computer generations - unless you have a implementation of large scale quantum computing - and may not even be practically possible for real systems.

    Chimeras all. The only thing that matters with SOA, REST and others is roughly what can be done with it *now*. Most of the rest is just persiflage.

  12. Jim Plush | December 1, 2006 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    nice post…
    I actually was leading the push at my previous company mcafee to move from SOAP to REST. It was for one of our web apps that talked to a c++ server over SOAP. All they used it for was getting and setting data, yet the SOAP implementation made it sooooo slow and error prone. I suggested a RESTful approach and actually got buy off on it.

    It’s all how you present it.

  13. Doug Karr | December 2, 2006 at 1:14 am | Permalink

    Fantastic post. I couldn’t agree more. While attending Mashup Camp (http://www.mashupcamp.com) this was quite a discussion. When I returned to my company and discussed what I had heard, the architects and powers that be really scratched their heads and wondered if I was crazy.

    My personal opinion is that both have advantages and disadvantages. As well, many companies love having a WSDL… but others don’t like the overhead. Often, it depends on what platform they are developing on and what language they are developing in. (ie. Java and .NET tended to gravitate towards SOAP, but everyone else REST).

    Thanks Again! I hope folks listen!
    Doug

  14. Alex | December 2, 2006 at 5:58 am | Permalink

    Pete: I’m glad you led people to our little SOA corner of the net. :) Unfortunately you pointed to the beginning of a thread that ran some 300 messages or so (if I remember correctly), and towards the end of it I think there was a consensus that a) we’re getting there (’architecting and promoting infrastructure through service thinking and orientation, and “service” can mean a number of things, but it is mostly technology neutral), and b) most big vendors got it wrong as they’re selling you other stuff in SOA wrappers due to buzzword bonanza (and mostly link it to technology). I think Anne (from the list) has the nearest definition we mostly could agree with, which certainly flies in the face of big vendors.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is that since I *am* promoting SOA for the things we do, don’t make me feel dirty saying it, because I think there’s a good definition of the term that adds value (the non-technical version), and this definition isn’t the same as big vendor is promoting. (The technical version) :)

  15. Steven Devijver | December 2, 2006 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    I’ve worked for a couple of Global 2000 companies and I’m pretty sure they don’t always believe what the big vendors have to say about anything.

    Or in other words, which is more interesting: they know they’re paying too much money.

    Or even more interesting: they know they can get the same stuff cheaper and maybe even get better quality and/or performance.

    What you’re saying is wrong: they do read technology blogs and they know the stuff we know about technology.

    What’s holding them back is this: they’re sitting on a train, looking outside the window at the landscape that’s rushing by.

    If they go with framework X, Y or Z instead of with tool A, B or C delivered by IBM, HP or any other big company the blame of everybody else in the company - and remember that these are big companies - will fall on them if anything goes wrong like loosing records, not delivering on time of delivering the wrong thing.

    So they outsource the work and the responsibility so that when they are blamed to can point in turn to IBM, HP or whoever they hired.

    Another thing I saw happening before is that someone from the CRM or Finance or whatever Competence Center inside the company tells IT managers to use tool A, B op C. At that point it’s very hard to say no for the reason I described above.

    So how do these developers cope with this? They read technology blogs and dream about the good stuff.

  16. Jérémie Grodziski | December 2, 2006 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Completely right with your post.
    When I talk about REST approach within my day job, the reaction is :
    “what is it ? …but it’s not the usual way (RPC) of interacting within two system !”
    In the best case, I can use POX over HTTP because their is no good SOAP stack on the other side. But it’s still RPC style interaction.
    I think the paradigm move is too important in the first place. Secondly, design a good REST API is not accessible for the “lambda” programmer in typical company, I think you should have a good object oriented background to clearly understand the “state-driven” design.

  17. Jérémie Grodziski | December 2, 2006 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Completely right with your post.
    When I talk about REST approach within my day job, the reaction is :
    “what is it ? …but it’s not the usual way (RPC) of interacting within two system !”
    In the best case, I can use POX over HTTP because there is no good SOAP stack on the other side. But it’s still RPC style interaction.
    I think the paradigm move is too important in the first place. Secondly, design a good REST API is not accessible for the “lambda” programmer in typical company, I think you should have a good object oriented background to clearly understand the “state-driven” design.

  18. Pete | December 2, 2006 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    Alex: I do appreciate that there are honest, knowledgeable people who are working to make SOA a useful approach to distributed systems. Heck, I work with them. (Not only that, I don’t believe that the vendors are promoting-and redefining-SOA simply to move product.) Since you are among them, then you could hardly do anything less than try to advance your field. I don’t think SOA is “dirty,” just that it’s misconceived.

    The point of this post was to make the REST/Rails/simplicity crowd (of which I am one) aware that their message was not being heard by a large and important constituency.

    Steven: It’s important to understand that I am painting with broad strokes. Together the Global 2000 companies employ north of 10,000,000 IT workers. Certainly many of them, up and down the food chain, are clued in. Largely, though, and my personal experience confirms this, IT workers, no matter how smart, have very narrow fields of vision.

    However, I do accept your position that its not all tunnel-vision, but instead either self-preservation or simply being a good soldier. Sad just the same.

  19. Dan Pritchett | December 4, 2006 at 1:17 am | Permalink

    There is one consideration that is lacking in the assertion of slow adoption. Organizations with existing patterns have arrived at those patterns through proof. It’s not that new patterns can’t be adopted, but they have to be proven and proven to solve their problems. Unsubstantiated claims are insufficient, application to their problems are required.

    REST will find its way into corporate America but the way all other technology does. It starts at the edges, away from mission critical applications and as it proves itself, is adopted more broadly.

  20. Steve Jones | December 6, 2006 at 12:59 am | Permalink

    The bit that confuses me about the failure of WS-*, is it’s success. While people talk up REST as successful I’m still struggling to find proper commercial references beyond Amazon/Google that demonstrate the superiority of REST for B2B scenarios. I’m also really struggling to find the well specified REST bit (hell I can’t even get two REST experts to agree on what a “good” URI is at the moment) beyond an overly simple “GET is all powerful dude” approach.

    Meanwhile people in lots of industries (I was with some power generation folks yesterday) are developing successful applications with WS-*. You claim “localised” success, but there are already global successes, while the REST success stories are limited to a few “cool” centric services.

    The really sad part here is that IMO this argument is mute anyway, you can do everything in WS-* that you can in REST and its pitiful that in 2006 we are still talking about base protocol and document shifting approaches for system->system or service->service communication. The reason we continue to do this is IT’s obsession with technical “perfection” (as we see it) rather than just accepting something is “good enough” and moving onto the real challenges that face a business.

    Shifting an XML document from A to B has no value, so lets just back one horse and start solving the real business problems rather than the intellectual masturbation of WS-* v REST.

  21. Pete | December 6, 2006 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    Steve: I think we agree more than we disagree. Most of the corporate world is using WS-* and launching SOA initiatives. That was the main point of this post. I also agree that IT (or is it just the EAs?) obsesses over the technology to the point where little real work gets done. I’ve heard this called “analyis paralysis” and “SOA fatigue.” But in a way you can’t blame them, as the rules keep changing underneath them.

    Where we disagree is that I have yet to see “global success.” But by “local” and “global” I’m not talking about geographic distance, TCP/IP has long made distance irrelevant. What I mean is pervasiveness through the enterprise, that is SOA. I’m in the field too, and what I see is that most people are still very much in the tire-kicking phase, and those that have successfully deployed web services have done so in a very limited way, generally as a poor man’s EAI solution; that is point-to-point integration. And even then these services are not implemented according to currently accepted best practices and the effort involved was often more than should have been necessary.

    Furthermore, I believe that the WS vs. REST debate is of value. It does seem as if the same points are debated over and over again, I’ll give you that. But IMHO, the more designers and developers that are made aware of REST, the better the systems they create will be. So the debate goes on. Strangely, I think the arguments of both sides have had positive effects on the other.

    Finally, I’ve been following the debate involving the “two REST experts,” and it seems to me that Mark and Stefan are in broad agreement, but may be having some difficulty getting their point across. Which, BTW, is that URIs should not be meaningful to client software. That is, software should not assume that the contents of a URI describe a resource, nor should it construct URIs from some out of band agreement. However, since humans are also involved, then you’re better off using meaningfully named URIs. By loose analogy, compilers don’t care about a variable’s name, but programmers do.

  22. Al | December 8, 2006 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    Peter I concur 100% with your enterprise problem analysis, and it is probably the result of staying in their safety zones.

    I also believe that dwelling on the REST vs SOAP arguments acheives little, it should after all be about delivery and solutions. On the same note forgive any of my previous blog ramblings into such controversial territory.

    I just got to say what a great post I am now subscribed…

    regards
    AL

  23. Galaxys2 Ringtones | September 9, 2011 at 6:10 am | Permalink

    Please let me know if you’re looking for a author for your weblog. You have some really good articles and I think I would be a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I’d really like to write some content for your blog in exchange for a link back to mine. Please send me an e-mail if interested. Kudos!

  24. pool floats | October 3, 2011 at 7:46 am | Permalink

    I would repeat that most of us site visitors are extremely lucky to be in a remarkable network with many brilliant people with valuable opinions.

  25. Wilson Nantanapibul | October 18, 2011 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    usual’ after-tax income 4. How does your current setup fit within the 20% Rule and the 25% Income Rule? 5. What if anything do you plan to do about it, if you currently break either/both of these

  26. ralph lauren sale | March 17, 2012 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    very nice article, i clearly enjoy this web site, keep it.

  27. louisvuittonoutletba | June 21, 2013 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    I constantly spent my half an hour to read this blog content Pete Lacey’s Weblog : They can’t hear you all the time along with a cup of coffee. louis vuitton outlet bags http://www.voguebagsstore.com/monogram-canvas-c-1_39.html

  28. Office rental | July 10, 2013 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I truly appreciate your efforts
    and I will be waiting for your further post thank
    you once again.

  29. Customize NHL | July 18, 2013 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    Hi I am so excited I found your site, I really found
    you by accident, while I was researching on Askjeeve for something else, Anyhow I am here now and would just
    like to say thanks for a tremendous post and a all round interesting
    blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to look over it all at the minute but I have book-marked it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read more, Please do keep up the awesome job.

  30. MarkoCheze | November 7, 2013 at 3:41 am | Permalink

    Comprare Viagra con la consegna a domicilio. Comprare Viagra sul nostro sito voi potrete con il prezzo piu basso in assoluto. Vi offriamo i notevoli sconti e la spedizione rapida. source:[url=http://comprareviagra.info/viagra-senza-ricetta.html]viagra senza ricetta[/url]

  31. Top Eleven Be a | November 23, 2013 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    Because here is a list of multiplayer games is that the leave was
    asked for more. Duplicating things that have already been proven to work is a great strategy when you
    are trying to grow your business and build a team. The player had his picture, albeit with a strange grimace and geeky affects.

  32. Efarmsolutions.Com | November 28, 2013 at 2:31 am | Permalink

    Actually, these money providers pursue no past finance history check
    policy. Here it is possible to check around, and establish the
    reputation diverse contractors in the community.
    The broad category of financial planning includes not only managing cash flow and expenses but also
    evaluating market trends and forecasting liquidity.

{ 14 } Trackbacks

  1. Stefan Tilkov's Random Stuff | November 30, 2006 at 2:28 am | Permalink

    They Can’t Hear You…

    Again a post I don’t have much comments on except +1. What Pete said. Given the coverage he got with his last post, I predict this one’s going to get linked from everywhere…….

  2. Wunschdenken » Blog Archiv » Hear hear! | November 30, 2006 at 2:37 am | Permalink

    [...] I was quite relieved when I read Pete Lacey’s post, as it means the world of cubicles hasn’t swallowed IT entirely. There are some companies where the CEO is blogging. Some might understand this as a marketing instrument and broadcast medium at first, but the medium will get them - there is no blogging without discussion. And if the CEO sets the example, employees are likely to follow. [...]

  3. James Tauber's Blog | November 30, 2006 at 5:56 am | Permalink

    They Can’t Hear Us…

    Pete Lacey’s has a great post They Can’t Hear You on the gap between the corner of the blogosphere I tend to hang around in and what goes on inside most large enterprises….

  4. [...] Pete Lacey says They can’t hear you. I think this is a realistic assessment of the current reality facing corporate developers. [...]

  5. They can’t hear you « jpp’s notes | November 30, 2006 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    [...] Un article qui contient diverses refs sur un theme a la mode sur les blogs techniques du moment, a savoir le combat des solutions simples face a l’usinagazification des SAO : They can’t hear you [...]

  6. [...] So Pete Lacey wrote this piece about how many enterprise customers aren’t aware of the SOA vs. REST stuff. Guess what… it’s absolutely true. Why? Two reasons. One is obvious: by and large, enterprise technology professionals know only what IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, and SAP tell them, tempered a bit with what Gartner and Forrester and, yes, Burton Group have to say. And what these companies are saying is SOA, SOA, SOA. Now, I don’t believe for a minute, as some people have suggested, that they are selling complexity because you can’t make money on simplicity (you can, by the way). No, they honestly belive SOAP, SOA, and the WS-Framework is the best way to build and architect distributed systems. And they’re smart people too; my SOA-preaching colleagues at Burton Group are scary smart. [...]

  7. [...] Pete Lacey’s Weblog :: They can’t hear you “Now begins the age of REST, and Rails, and Microformats, and getting shit done.” Amen! (tags: rest soa webservices enterprisey) [...]

  8. Labnotes » Rounded Corners - 68 | December 1, 2006 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    [...] Wise words. Once more, I turn the mic to Pete Lacey: ” Maybe you don’t work for or with a Global 2000 company, so I’ll let you in on a little secret: They Can’t Hear You! … The second is because business-oriented technologist refuse to beleive that simple solutions apply to their problem set. … Certainly no technology that’s been sitting under their noses for the last ten years can ever handle the needs that enterprises have!” Excellent read, and sadly based on a true story. [...]

  9. tech decentral » links for 2006-12-01 | December 1, 2006 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    [...] Pete Lacey’s Weblog :: They can’t hear you “Web services won’t be pervasive in three years, for the simple reason that the technology can’t do what its proponents claim it can do. It’s too complex, it’s too poorly specified, it’s caught up in the ever-continuing vendor wars, and it’s s (tags: soa web-services rest simplicity scalability enterprise architecture) [...]

  10. [...] There is always a wonderment to “those in the trenches” as to why Enterprise Developers are not trying things like Ruby, Django, REST, AJAX and the like (ok, AJAX has had some traction, but the others, not at all). This article spells it out pretty well: they just don’t care about things that don’t come from the big players (MS, IBM, SAP etc). This is simply an economic reality. As was the old adage, “No one ever got fired by buying IBM” it is much safer to purchase from the big players, as the people you are dealing with will most likely also be purchasing from them. Whether those companies have picked the best technologies is moot. Whatever they have selected is most likely going to be what is in fashion in the big end of town. End of story. As another article I read said (and I’m paraphrasing) “If you want to be correct, learn REST, if you want a job, learn WS.” (unless of course you make your own startup, but that’s another kettle of fish). [...]

  11. [...] I trust the water piped directly to my house, but I’m more careful when it comes to packages which flop through my letterbox. A signed-sealed envelope delivered by a courier boosts my confidence, but helps a lot more if I know who sent it. So whilst WS-Security offers a little more than just TLS, it’s the thought and effort being expended to establish and exchange identity that currently gives WS-* the security edge over REST. It’s great to see that RESTians are starting to at least see the issue, triggered by Pete Lacy and Gunnar Peterson’s great posts. But don’t panic: I suspect the establishment of Trust and exchange of Identities may indeed be answered by SOAP/WSS, only it’ll be baked-hard and packaged into something like CardSpace. That way the slippy stuff won’t prevent us from continuing to use the Web and getting shit done. [...]

  12. [...] Pete Lacey has an excellent post up about why all the teeth knashing over REST vs. WS-* and W3C XML Schema vs. Relax NG doesn’t really matter within the corporate space. I’ve certainly argued about this enough to know the sad reality that he’s right … as much as I hate to admit it. No matter how much simpler things could be if we chucked the whole WS-* stack, in the corporate world nobody is listening. All they hear is what the big vendors say, and all they talk about is SOAP and WS-* and W3C XML schema and a bunch of other really complex crap that just makes people’s jobs harder. [...]

  13. Mokka mit Schlag » REST Pessimists | December 3, 2006 at 7:58 am | Permalink

    [...] Several people have started to push back on the REST vs. WS-* and RELAX vs. W3C XSD and Rails vs. JEE fronts with a self-defeating argument. Well, of course, you’re right they say; but it doesn’t matter. The big vendors are selling these big, expensive complex solutions; and that’s all the CIO hears; so that’s all that matters. Sure, you can get the job done better/faster/cheaper with Rails/REST/RELAX, but you won’t. Well, to these pessimists I have a one-word response: [...]

  14. [...] It’s funny, but it took until halfway through the second day before Microsoft got more than a passing mention, and that was in a ping-pong between vendors regarding lack of participation in the Databinding Working Group. I can imagine Microsoft saying “we don’t need to go to a W3C workshop to talk to our customers” but it did rather come across as a case of “they can’t hear you” and what’s more, they don’t care. [...]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *