Tim Bray is speaking out against the WS-Insanity. The idea, like in parliament, is to oppose, but be loyal by not leading a mob with pitchforks, and standing ready to provide an alternative. I like that idea, and might even put my pitchfork and torch away for a while to see how this goes.
I Still Don't Buy It No matter how hard I try, I still think the WS-* stack is bloated, opaque, and insanely complex. I think it's going to be hard to understand, hard to implement, hard to interoperate, and hard to secure.
So here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to stay out of the way and watch the WS-visionaries and WS-dreamers and WS-evangelists go ahead and WS-build their WS-future. Because I've been wrong before, and maybe they'll come up with something that WS-works and people want to WS-use. And if they do that, I'll stand up and say "I was WS-wrong."
In the meantime, I'm going to be talking to those other people I mentioned; the ones who are actually doing what feels to me like Web Services today, and I'll try to see if there are some shared lessons and shared frameworks and shared architectures that emerge, and should be captured and documented. [Tim Bray]
Meanwhile Matt Powell claims you shouldn't worry:
Is the stack hard to understand, implement and interoperate? Here's an article that explains the specs, but again, if you don't understand all the specs, don't worry about it. Tools are being created by people everywhere to make it so you can just indicate the capabilities you need and the rest will be done for you.
Yes, the tools will save you! Oooh, been there, done that. Rememeber?
To the writers -- don't worry, we haven't forgotten about you. In fact, we care about you more than ever. You don't need to be messing with the XML by hand -- that's not what it's designed for, it's designed for programs. We've tried to create programs...[Guess Who? ]
Try to guess the author of those words and the technology they're talking about before clicking through.