[exprla-devel] Re: [XPL] XML/Web infrastructure

[reid_spencer <ras...@re...>]

--- In xpl-dev@y..., cagle@o... wrote:
Simon,

Both so as not to risk ill will and to clarify a few points, I want 
to make the following responses:

> I'm not certain that XML makes 'too much of a demand', but it 
certainly
> makes demands and opens new possibilities.  I tend to enjoy the
> 'disruptions' XML causes.
We are shifting paradigms here, and as a general rule of thumb, as 
one paradigm becomes ascendant another becomes obsolete. It's my 
personal conviction that the paradigm being shifted is not HTML -- 
although that will in fact be subsumed by the technology over time. 
Rather the paradigm is procedural programming itself. As I see it, 
over time VB, Java, and even (gasp) C++ will take on increasingly XML 
like characteristics, to the point where eventually these languages 
largely disappear as independent entities. That is not necessarily to 
say that they will be cast in an XML description (though that may 
happen in some cases). Rather, the mechanisms for handling procedural 
languages will grow out of the hydra-like head of XML, with XML 
itself likely to evolve in the process.

> I don't think XML-RPC and SOAP use the "HTTP protocol incorrectly", 
though
> I certainly think it's worth considering more efficient transfer 
protocols
> with clearer security.
My biggest problems with any type of XML based RPC is that, while you 
can write very efficient RPC code that effectively keeps most of the 
interaction in a periodic request from a client to a server to send 
in a larger stream of data (and this use I don't have problems with 
at all), it can also be used to control component interactions on the 
server one command at a time.  RPCs have typically been complex 
things to write, involving skills that were sufficiently specialized 
that there was a prerequisite understanding of how best to optimize 
the RPCs service. However, by making RPCs much simpler, it lowers the 
bar on the skills necessary to create such RPCs, which in turn means 
that you'll see more people use XML-RPCs to handle routine component 
control commands that should typically be handled within a compiled 
(or at least protected) control.  Thus I have this disturbing visions 
of lots of RPCs basically performing incremental procedural coding 
between environments using XML as the basis, which is the worst 
possible way of designing such systems.

My second concern with RPCs is that they are running over http, 
typically through port 80. Firewalls exist for a purpose -- to keep 
critical subcomponents from being programmed illicitly.  SOAP 
especially is designed (and this has been a common thread coming from 
a number of different vendors) to bypass the firewalls. Thus by 
explicit admission, SOAP in particular serves as a means of 
circumventing security measures put in place by sys admins in the 
first place.

These were the specific objection that I had when I said that XML-
RPCs used the HTTP protocol incorrectly. The syntactic use of such 
techniques is undoubtedly correct, though they do rely on extensions 
to the protocol, but so do many other things.  It is more in the 
usage of SOAP that I see a conflict with the design goals of HTTP, 
and the biggest danger from it.  I should point out that I do see the 
obvious benefits of incorporating SOAP -- it is a powerful 
technology; it is however this exact power that worries me.

> I think it's time to consider changing the Internet to make better 
use of
> XML and to simplify implementing the possibilities XML opens up.  
It's not
> yet time to throw everything out and start over, but I'm glad to 
hear that
> people are willing to at least consider the possibility of a 
transition.
I'm not questioning the sentiment (which I personally agree with), 
but the feasibility.  The Internet evolved -- at no point was there a 
single conscious decision for it to appear in the form that it did; 
rather, as different people contributed different facets to this 
communication protocol and all the technologies overlaying it, the 
Internet lurched and lunged through different embodiments of itself.  
XML as a language for creating the semantic web is laudible but far 
too late; as a consequence, the best approach may very well be to 
introduce a new meme into the existing infrastructure that would make 
it evolve toward the newer requiremenets. This is a very 
counterintutive notion, that one should grow or evolve the web, but I 
suspect that it may be the only way that we can effectively integrate 
this new paradigm into the systems at hand.

BTW, it's late, I've been chasing kids around all day, and I'm 
probably not making a lot of sense at the moment.

-  Kurt Cagle
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
To: <xpl@e...>
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2000 9:29 AM
Subject: [XPL] XML/Web infrastructure


> I'm going to reply to various bits, and hope this doesn't get too 
confusing.
> 
> Richard Hein wrote:
> >www.xml.com has an articles about some things we need to be 
> >informed about,
> > including the foundational infrastructure of the 'net and how XML 
> >makes too
> > much of a demand on the current infrastructure,
> 
> I'm not certain that XML makes 'too much of a demand', but it 
certainly
> makes demands and opens new possibilities.  I tend to enjoy the
> 'disruptions' XML causes.
> 
> Kurt Cagle wrote:
> >I just spent three days closeted with Simon St. Laurent, who wrote 
the
> >article, and while I agree with him in part, I would also keep in 
mind that
> >he represents just one side of this issue.
> 
> Kurt's completely right that there are _many_ sides to all of these 
issues.
>  I wouldn't have written the article if it hadn't been for the 
strong
> opposition some of those opinions have generated.  I'd like to see 
XML
> carry on disrupting things, but not everyone is happy about that.
> 
> Kurt wrote:
> >I do agree
> >with Simon with regard to the issue of SOAP and XML-RPC, and I 
have made me
> >feelings known about that in the VBXML board -- we are utilizing 
the HTTP
> >protocol incorrectly, placing too many demands upon it to 
efficiently handle
> >the use of the network as a common interchange medium for 
messagess. It also
> >gives me more than a little pause about both security concerns and
> >architecure.
> 
> I don't think XML-RPC and SOAP use the "HTTP protocol incorrectly", 
though
> I certainly think it's worth considering more efficient transfer 
protocols
> with clearer security.
> 
> Then Richard wrote:
> >Kurt says that he
> >disagrees with Simon St. Laurent, who wrote an article on the 
problems with
> >the current infrastructure on http://www.xml.com in the sense that 
it may be
> >too late to change a lot of it now.  I don't really know what to 
think about
> >that, but I wonder because it only took a few years for the 
internet to grow
> >out of obscurity into this huge thing, so why would it be so bad 
to change
> >it somewhat for XML?
> 
> I think it's time to consider changing the Internet to make better 
use of
> XML and to simplify implementing the possibilities XML opens up.  
It's not
> yet time to throw everything out and start over, but I'm glad to 
hear that
> people are willing to at least consider the possibility of a 
transition.
> 
> These are interesting times!
> 
> Simon St.Laurent
> XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
> http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> Replace complicated scripts using 14 new HTML tags that work in
> current browsers.
> Form the Web today - visit:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/5769/2/_/809694/_/961864057/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> xpl-unsubscribe@o...
> 
> 
>
--- End forwarded message ---