RE: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing?
"Champion, Mike" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mathews, Walden [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:37 AM > To: 'Champion, Mike'; [email protected] > Subject: RE: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing? > > > - I made the design mistake of a lifetime when managing > ticker plant development. We needed to arbitrate between > redundant feeds, and chose to do it in the infrastructure > instead of the application layer. Woe is me. We ended up > implementing a sliding window protocol, introducing > unavoidable latency and still falling short of the full > requirement, all because we were focused on a "reliable > stream" instead of a "recoverable repository". Hindsight > is 20/20. Just sticking records in a database and filling > the gaps out of band would have been both easier and a > better functioning solution. > > This has little to do with REST, according to my experience, so > it might be helpful in a political way to decouple. [Wearing my Software AG (a DBMS vendor) hat, not my WSA co-chair hat] You may be a RESTifarian without knowing it :-) I discovered that I had RESTifarian leanings for exactly this reason -- it seems so much easier to "stick records in a [shared] database" that has transaction management, etc. than to worry about all that reliability, routing, transactionality, coordination, etc. at the messaging layer. The Linda / JavaSpaces / TupleSpaces / XML Spaces stuff seems particularly relevant here. I believe that Linda-esque coordination is considered RESTful by the cognoscenti, but I'm not sure. (yes, I know, there's a page on this in the REST Wiki ... I'll read it!) I do think that the question of how to balance the duties that one can expect the infrastructure to perform (after all, a DBMS is "infrastructure") and how much must demand of the application is a very good one however ... and I personally would like to see the reference architecture be abstract enough to encompass both message routing/reliability/transactions and DBMS intermediated messaging.