Advertisment

Will web services remain just a hype?

author-image
CIOL Bureau
Updated On
New Update

Go back in time by a couple of years. Think of early 2002: one of the hottest

areas in technology arena used to be Web services. It sort of coincided with the

hype Microsoft created around its .NET technology; the Redmond giant had sort of

succeeded in making .NET synonymous with Web services. But not just Microsoft,

marketing pashas of all other big-ticket vendors like IBM, Sun, HP, BEA Systems,

and Oracle were singing paeans on Web services; consultants were going gung-ho

over the next big wave in computing; even media were doing their bit to

accentuate the hype. Enterprises the world over, India included, were exploring

means of how and when they needed to embrace Web services.

Advertisment

Fast forward to 2005: Web services still does not have significant numbers to

show in terms of actual adoption by enterprises, the hype has waned down

considerably with most CIOs now viewing it as an esoteric technology-to be

discussed but not adopted. Even the vendors are cautious in their predictions

about the immediate future of Web services. In India there are hardly any sample

case studies showcasing Web services' adoption. One rare instance is the Andhra

Pradesh government whose citizen centric portals like eSeva and AP Online are

connecting to the back-end services like Hyderabad Water Billing systems or

statewide Bus Service systems through Web services. Even in this case, currently

the applications are being developed, while actual deployment would take a few

months. There have been a host of issues that have not let Web services gather

as much steam as was expected in 2002, if not totally retarded its growth in the

nascent stage.

What is the right word?



The most basic one has been that notwithstanding the hype, no clear

definition has emerged on what exactly constitutes Web services. Different

connotations and interpretations by multiple vendors have only added to the

confusion. Everyone agrees that the term "Web services" refers to a

new set of flexible application building blocks that let companies exchange data

easily between dissimilar systems. But that is where the agreement ends; the

rest appears to be a mass of confusion. Sometimes the technology is said to be

as simple as basic browser-based services-a single request by a PC in Bangalore

for a currency conversion from a server in Orlando, for instance. Sometimes it

is described as sophisticated communications links between Web servers and host

computers that let incompatible systems talk to one another as if they were

virtual twins.

Meanwhile vendors, looking to jump on what they perceive as a bandwagon

rapidly gaining speed, claim that anything they do that uses XML is Web

services. And the confusion extends beyond the complications of the technology

itself. No wonder, every CIO we spoke to feels it difficult to determine the

business value of Web services. Primarily there is confusion at three levels.

First, to many Web services still means only Web sites. Then there is the

changing nature of the technologies themselves. Confusion at the second level is

understandable, given that standards are still in the process of definition. As

for the third level, CIOs demand that even if they understand the technology, no

vendor has yet been able to convincingly show them the RoI to be derived from

implementing Web services.

Advertisment

Individual vendor spin tends to further confuse the issue, for instance, Sun

Microsystems, who claims that it is not merely Web services, but Smart Web

services that that would ultimately find takers amongst enterprises. However,

the saving solace is that Anil Valluri, Director-Systems Engineering, Sun

Microsystems India offers a convincing explanation to expound this point of

view. "According to us, when we say smart Web services, we mean a scenario

when each one can create a Java or .NET based Web service and publish to a UDDI

directory and anyone can discover the service access over the net using

protocols like SOAP and XML. Whereas mere Web services would mean software code

written using Java or .NET technology and not published or discovered

automatically through a UDDI mechanism".

Therefore, according to Sun, a Web service is a part of smart web service but

is not all of it. It is a good step in the direction of smart Web services

adoption. Another important enabler for a smart Web service is federated

identity for doing business transactions, where a user's identity is passed from

one organization to another in a 'circle of trust' federation for utilizing the

service.

Admits RamKumar Kothandraman, Microsoft Architect Evangelist on Web Services:

"Web services is confusing because there has been a little bit of marketing

hype, as opposed to speaking about its business value. But all that is changing

now, as enterprises see for themselves the exponential value that implementing

Web services brings along." Valluri agrees: "RoI on Smart Web Services

is justifiable on increased business through e-commerce and ease of use. It

clearly helps in intelligent up-sell for one's customers and business

partners," he asserts.

Advertisment

Dhruv Singhal, Head Professional Services, BEA Systems tries to convince to

not look at Web services as an extension of the Sun-Microsoft conflict. His

contention is that enterprises today live in a heterogeneous environment where

the key point of a discussion is not .NET vs Java. As an enterprise starts to

embrace Web services, or move into adoption of Service Oriented Architecture (SOA),

the question of whether a particular service is implemented on .NET or J2EE

becomes secondary. He feels that Web Services is truly promising because it is

implementation agnostic. "BEA intends to differentiate itself by providing

the best interoperability and best implementation to address infrastructure

issues such as reliability, scalability, performance, and availability,"

Singhal informs.

Standard conflict



While the non-emergence of a clear definition as well as a clear RoI model

has proved to be a stumbling block for Web services adoption, a plethora of

conflicting standards has added to the woes. Despite the blitzkrieg of standards

work, Web services languages today are in roughly the same position as word

processors were 15 years ago-lots of incompatible choices. No wonder, Web

services adoption has suffered in the midst of this quandary.

The standards battle is being waged on two fronts: consortia are creating

competing specifications, as are XML tool developers. CIOs who ignore the war

will be letting these groups decide which will become the specifications of

choice. A worst-case scenario could find a company building its internal Web

services in one language but its competition, and its suppliers, building in a

different language. Sorting out XML standards is today like virtually cleaning

the proverbial Augean stables. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is working on

high-level infrastructure issues, while the Organization for the Advancement of

Structured Information Standards (OASIS) is defining practical processes users

need.

Advertisment

However, some standards complexity is unavoidable because XML is not a

standard, but just a mark-up language. Because it is so dynamic, it can create a

new standard on the fly. The beauty of XML is that it can help create a language

for any application or business process just by defining the variables in tags.

XML uses those tags to understand, move, process and format data. This possibly

explains Ram Kumar's assertion that Web services is becoming like how an

enterprise can expose its different business processes by enabling a services

framework that would allow them to talk to each other.

Singhal informs that BEA has been very open about supporting the standards

based computing. "We continuously drive new innovation into the standards

process in each of the software stacks that BEA participates in. In areas where

there are existing standards, BEA strives to deliver the best implementation of

those standards. In areas where there are none, we lead the standardization

process." He claims that BEA works closely with other leading players in

the market to define and drive it through the standards process. For example, as

one of the original authors (along with IBM and Microsoft), BEA continues drive

the BPEL standardization.

The

Emerging Standards
Standard Version Description Chair

members
Web

Service Reliable Messaging (WSRM)
1.1 Specification

describes a protocol that allows messages to be delivered

reliably between distributed applications in the presence of

software component, system, or network failures.
BEA,

IBM, Microsoft, TIBCO
Business

Process Execution Language for Web Service (BPEL4WS)
BPEL

2.0
BPEL4WS

enables portability and interoperability by defining constructs

to implement executable business processes and message exchange

protocols, thereby supporting both executable and abstract

business processes.
BEA,

IBM, Microsoft
 Web

Service Transaction (WS-Transaction)
- The

specification defines three specific agreement coordination

protocols for the atomic transaction coordination type:

completion, volatile two-phase commit, and durable two-phase

commit.
BEA,

IBM, Microsoft
Simple

Object Access Protocol (SOAP)
1.2 Facilitates

interoperability among a wide range of programs and platforms,

making existing applications accessible to a broader range of

users. SOAP combines the proven Web technology of HTTP with the

flexibility and extensibility of XML.
DevelopMentor,

IBM, Microsoft, Lotus, UserLand Software
Web

Service Interoperability (WS-Interoperability)
- WS-Interoperability

protocol provide support for

runtime interoperability.
BEA,

Fujitsu, Intel, HP, IBM, Microsoft, SAP, Sun Microsystems,

WebMethods
Universal

Description Discovery

and Integration (UDDI)
2 UDDI

can give a business visibility on a global scale by providing a

means for an organization to advertise its business and services

in a global registry.
Ariba,

IBM, Microsoft
Web

Service Description Language (WSDL)
1.1 An

XML-based language that allows formal descriptions

of the interfaces of Web services:
Ariba,

IBM, Microsoft
Extensible

Access Control Markup Language(XACML)
1 XACML

provides a policy language which allows administrators to define

the access control requirements for their application resources.

The language and scheme support include data types, functions,

and combining logic which allow complex (or simple) rules to be

defined. XACML also includes an access decision language used to

represent the runtime request for a resource.
Sun

Microsystems

Source:

BEA Systems

Advertisment

Other than the lack of a convincing business case and confusion over

standards, Web services have also witnessed other roadblocks in India. For one,

the b2b space in India itself has not grown in the magnitude expected. This has

obviously stymied more widespread adoption of Web services across enterprises.

In addition, implementation of EAI within large enterprises have also been a

deterrent for Web services. Large enterprises have completed deployment of their

core applications and have now started integrating these applications. One can

now expect to see some of these organizations standardizing on Web Services as

the technology for exposing standard services.

Web

Services Cheat Sheet

Web Services Allow

Enterprises...

  • Link new and

    legacy systems to new applications

  • Conduct online

    transactions with less integration cost

  • Reduce time to

    market by decreasing development and testing time

  • Continually

    adapt applications to match new business processes

Advantages

  • Web services

    can speed application development and reduce costs to access

    data on disparate systems.

  • Dissimilar

    legacy systems can communicate without expensive translation

    applications.

  • Developers do

    not have to know anything about systems they are

    communicating with.

  • Users only

    have to install a translation process for their disparate

    systems once.

Disadvantages

  • Lack of

    agreement on a definition means confusion for users.

  • Standards are

    in flux, with more than a dozen competing schemes.

  • Services

    written to one standard will not work with Web sites

    supporting others without a translation service between.

Components



SOAP:


Simple Object Access Protocol allows information in XML

to be exchanged and defines how applications execute Web

services.




UDDI:
Universal

Description, Discovery and Integration service helps

applications find Web services elsewhere on the Internet.




WSDL:
Web Services

Description Language lets Web services describe what they are,

where they can be found and how they should be used.

Security and Interoperability



As more and more Web services come online, more and more information will

pass across networks at risk from any number of mishaps, from data loss to

break-ins by malicious hackers. Organizations like the W3C and companies ranging

from Microsoft and Sun are working together to develop security standards to use

in Web services. Valluri advises that identity infrastructure would be a

strongly recommended pre-requisite before enterprises go in for smart Web

services for business. Additionally, adoption of open standards based federated

identity technologies such as "Liberty Alliance" should be considered

for business transactions across organizations. Already this "Liberty

Alliance" has 160 members and is one of those rare platforms where Sun and

Microsoft are working together.

Advertisment

Singhal informs that BEA provides support for the latest Web services

security standards as well as the ability to connect to third party Web service

security providers. "Specifically the platform provides: Security and

transactions via standard J2EE mechanisms; HTTP authenticated identity that can

be passed to EJBs; Supports J2EE roles via a web app and EJB deployment

descriptors; Standard container-managed transactions (via EJB)." Also, most

vendors like BEA, are investing heavily in support of emerging security Web

services standards such as WS-Security, WS-Policy. Most are working to get them

in good shape with a stable specification, interoperability, as well as

availability on royalty-free terms.

CIOs

Confusion

CIOs feel it

difficult to determine the business value of Web Services.

Primarily, confusion still exists at three levels:



-

To many, Web Services still mean only Web sites.



-

The changing nature of the technologies themselves. Confusion at

the second level is understandable, given that standards are

still in the process of definition.



-

CIOs demand that even if they understand the technology, no

vendor has yet been able to convincingly show them the RoI to be

derived from implementing Web services.

Interoperability is another issue that needs to be hashed out among the

various Web services providers. So far, the various companies driving the

standards committees (Microsoft, Sun, BEA, IBM, Oracle and HP are playing nice

as they hammer out standards the entire Web services community can adhere to,

but how long remains a question. Businesses go with the name they trust, or with

the company they have been using all along. The market position each of the

leading Web service proponents share encompasses much of the computer world

today not only in India, but across the world.

Advertisment

The initial success of the technology will depend largely on these Web

services companies' willingness to allow information to be passed from one

business to another using different platforms.

Rajneesh De

Source: Dataquest

tech-news