[MOBY-dev] JMoby....

[Martin Senger]

My dear Dmitry,


Could we once and forever clarify the difference between specification
> and implementation.


Could we please once and forever clarify what is polite and what is not?
Your emails are sometimes a bit aggressive (as are mine, probably) up to the
point that they decrease motivation to respond to them. Just my 2c's.

Regarding your comment, I am almost sure that the difference between
specification and implementation is  clear enough. It may not be the case
about two years ago but today I do not see any discrepancies. What do you
wish to clarify?


> I have my own (not JMoby) API that could allow me to use a standard
> JAX-WS web-services if BioMoby team follows the standard.
>

Between BioMoby developers, we usually save the word "API" to indicate the
API defining an access to the BioMoby registry and to the BioMoby services.
In other words, we usually refer to this API as to a language-independent
interface, while "Java API" (or "jMoby API") is used only for Java
developers - if they are interested to use it. It is, of course, up to them
how they realize their access to the BioMoby entities.

Regarding standards, we do our best in the changing world of standards. As
you have been informed, during the last meeting we made steps to accept also
the document/literal style and we are working on its implementation. But any
good clients will need to support, now and in the future, both protocols,
RPC/encoded and document/literal styles - we cannot afford to tell the
service providers "please throw out your running services and start again".
Therefore, if you are using only standard web-services style, your code is
not smart enough to be worth to look at (see? - this is my bit of
aggressivity :-)).

Regarding other standard - the XML Schema (of the messages between client
and services, not between clients and registry) - and the WSDL derived from
the schema, I believe that you are not fully aware of the fact that there is
no way to express the current BioMoby payload in the XML Schema (unless you
change the schema with every request). Take it or leave it.

Having said that does not mean that I am personally happy with it but c'est
la vie. For BioMoby the future probably is in the RDF orientation and not to
try go back to the compliancy with the XML Schema (Mark's words in my poor
interpretation). But it would help people (like you) to understand why
BioMoby payload cannot be fully expressed in an XML Schema if we document
it. I believe that during the last meeting we agreed that the reasons why
XML cannot be created will be documented soon (on the new BioMoby pages that
are being created as we speak).

Martin

-- 
Martin Senger
  email: martin.senger at gmail.com
             m.senger at cgiar.org
  skype: martinsenger