| Author |
Message
|
| pcelari |
 Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:49 am Post subject: Is Webservice all there is for SOA? |
 |
|
Chevalier
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 411
Location: New York
|
it might sound like a trivial question.
while trying to learn a bit about SOA, I got the impression Webservice is all there is for services in a SOA enviornment. Although I doubt this is true, but when I asked "what about MQ and everything else", a colleague countered with the statement "give me anything in MQ offering that is nearly as comprehensive an accepted standard as WSDL."
Has anyone implemented a true "service" in MQ in the context of SOA? if yes how? Or is there a document about creating one using MQ in an SOA environment?
thanks for sharing your insight
_________________
pcelari
-----------------------------------------
- a master of always being a newbie |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Web Services supports two bindings for SOAP message transport.
HTTP and JMS.
JMS bniding can easily use MQ as the transport. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| JMS bniding can easily use MQ as the transport. |
It's a widely held falacy that you can only send a SOAP message born out of a WSDL with HTTP. We recently had a design discussion over WS-ReliableMessaging where I made the rather catty comment that we could implement ExactlyOnce by simply running our existing messages over our existing MQ infrastructure using JMS bindings & it would take about 10 minutes to design.
The web services people lit some torches and tried to burn me for herasy. Fortunately experience has taught me to wear body armour and flame resistant clothing to such meetings.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
As a post script, after the above described meeting agreed to use JMS bindings, I did ask the opposing forces what the difference was between a Reliable Messaging Source (as described in the OASIS standard) and a queue manager.
I don't think their answer was intended to be taken literally. It wasn't very technical and implied the existance of broader based health coverage than this site provides.
So if any kind person actually has an explaination of the technical difference, I'd be interested in hearing it. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| pcelari |
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 411
Location: New York
|
thanks much for pointing that out, and sharing your insightful story.
Would you mind sharing a little more detail how you did it? body armour is needed every time such things are tried out
Is there an example of kind?
_________________
pcelari
-----------------------------------------
- a master of always being a newbie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| pcelari wrote: |
| Would you mind sharing a little more detail how you did it? |
Like I said, it wasn't a big deal. We use a shared WMQ topology so all of the web service applications have access to a queue manager. For 99% of the cases we simply changed the WSDL to use JMS rather than HTTP, and applied the usual WMQ design rules. In a majority of cases we didn't need to make any changes or additions to our topology; the WMQ instrstructure here pre-dates web services so all of the "interesting" places are already connected by WMQ channels of one sort or another.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| pcelari |
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 411
Location: New York
|
got it. thanks so much Vitor!
So it seems the access interface still has to be Web service, only the underlying communcation protocol is MQ over JMS instead of SOAP over HTTP.
I was wondering if there can also be a startdard describable interface like WSDL, but for MQ. It seems that is not so much a valid question.
So my colleague seems to be right: web service is the only standardized interface in extence in an SOA environment. All other interfaces are just there to be mediated to and from.
_________________
pcelari
-----------------------------------------
- a master of always being a newbie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| pcelari wrote: |
got it. thanks so much Vitor!
So it seems the access interface still has to be Web service, only the underlying communcation protocol is MQ over JMS instead of SOAP over HTTP.
I was wondering if there can also be a startdard describable interface like WSDL, but for MQ. It seems that is not so much a valid question.
So my colleague seems to be right: web service is the only standardized interface in extence in an SOA environment. All other interfaces are just there to be mediated to and from. |
Not quite, you are mistaken when you say MQ over JMS. Instead you should have said SOAP over JMS. It does make a difference... and yes the JMS endpoint can be described in a WSDL.
Have fun 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| pcelari wrote: |
| So it seems the access interface still has to be Web service, only the underlying communcation protocol is MQ over JMS instead of SOAP over HTTP. |
No. As my worthy associate points out, this is SOAP over JMS rather than SOAP over HTTP. The fact that MQ is the JMS provider is not relevant to the web services question.
| pcelari wrote: |
| I was wondering if there can also be a startdard describable interface like WSDL, but for MQ. It seems that is not so much a valid question. |
As I indicated above, we simply described the interface in the existing WSDLs as JMS rather than HTTP. I don't see how you came to this conclusion from what I said, but this conclusion is false.
| pcelari wrote: |
| So my colleague seems to be right: web service is the only standardized interface in extence in an SOA environment. All other interfaces are just there to be mediated to and from. |
Only in the sense that a web service is described by a standardised interface encapsulated in a WSDL. Nothing in that statement describes or mandates a particular transport.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mgk |
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 1642
|
Just to add to the mix, there is a full IBM defined standard for describing native MQ messages as services, (SOAP or not) using WSDL:
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg24017518
Kind regards,
_________________
MGK
The postings I make on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| pcelari |
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 411
Location: New York
|
thanks so much for sharing all the masters' insight and comments!
Apparently, I still have a lot to learn ... 
_________________
pcelari
-----------------------------------------
- a master of always being a newbie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| pcelari wrote: |
| Apparently, I still have a lot to learn ... |
We all do. That's why the best thing to learn is how to learn... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
