Welcome!

Microservices Expo Authors: Stackify Blog, Aruna Ravichandran, Dalibor Siroky, Kevin Jackson, PagerDuty Blog

Related Topics: Microservices Expo

Microservices Expo: Article

Building Blocks

Building Blocks

In the past two years, we have witnessed an explosion of Web services and XML communication technologies. While WSDL , SOAP, and UDDI have become the accepted bases of Web services, there are even more standards in the making.

This article is the first of a two-part series that examines the Web services technological space in order to provide an overview of some of the major Web services standards now in progress in various organizations and consortiums across the country.

General Classifications of Web Services
Web services technology can be broadly classified into three main groups, as shown in Figure 1.

 

The description stack deals with a wide range of technologies that describe Web services in order to facilitate their common use for business process modeling and workflow choreography in B2B collaborations. The discovery stack deals with technologies that allow for directory, discovery, and inspection services. The wire stack consists of technologies that provide the steam for the runtime engines of Web services.

Figure 2 breaks these stacks into their subcomponents. Many of the available Web services technologies can be mapped to these stacks, although not all stacks have a corresponding specification or technology.

 

Functional Classifications of Web Services Technology
Another useful way to organize the Web services technology space is according to function. We are interested in understanding why these technologies matter, what their purpose is with regard to solving business issues, and what their relationship to one another is. If we want to create a basic Web service, for example, what kind of technologies exist that can help? If we want to upgrade our basic service to a mission-critical Web service, what steps must we take?

The list below shows the various functional areas of the Web services technology space. This list is not comprehensive, but it does cover most of the available technologies.

  • Basic service
    - Service description
    - Communication protocols
    - Transport protocols

  • Complex payloads
  • Discovery
    - Inspection
    - Directory services

  • Enterprise strength
    - Transaction
    - Security
    - Reliability
    - Routing

  • B2B collaboration
    - Process modeling and orchestration

    In the remainder of this article, I'll address each of the functional categories of Web services technology and discuss the standards that apply.

    Basic Service
    There are two main groups of technologies we must consider to create a basic Web service: service description and communication protocols. Transport protocols aren't specific to Web services, and hence aren't covered here.

    Service Description
    Service description standards specify what a service is about, what actions are supported by the service, what input and output parameters the service takes, and how the service deals with error conditions. In 2000, IBM and Microsoft came out with competing technologies: NASSL and SDL, respectively. Fortunately, they were soon merged into WSDL (Web Services Description Language). As of today, WSDL stands as one of the widely adopted technologies for describing Web services. WSDL 1.1 has been submitted to W3C, which has recently started a working group to ratify it.

    WSDL takes a two-step approach to describing Web services. The first step is to provide an abstract definition of services and the data format; the second is to bind this abstract definition to concrete protocols. This two-step process permits reuse; it's possible to have many similar Web services based on one abstract definition with each implemented using different protocols.

    WSDL is independent of any network and communication protocols, although it does define default binding to HTTP, SOAP, and MIME. Similarly, WSDL isn't tied to any type of system, although it does use XML Schema. WSDL is designed to be extensible to work with different types of systems and other network and communication protocols. Listing 1 demonstrates the simple WSDL grammar used to describe services. Note: This example isn't complete and won't parse; more namespaces need to be defined.

    In Listing 1 the message element, along with the part element, defines the data in abstract terms. The operation element defines the action supported by the service. WSDL defines four basic operations: one-way, request-response, solicit-response, and notification. The portType element acts as a container for a set of abstract operations. In this example, we define a portType element, "StockQuotePortType", with a single operation, "GetLastTradePrice", which takes an input message, "GetLastTradePriceRequest", and gives an output message, "GetLastTradePriceResponse".

    These abstract definitions are then bound to concrete protocols using the binding element. The port element captures the communication endpoint details, and the service element contains a list of related ports. The types element (not shown) acts as a data container holding various data type definitions. In the example, the operations in "StockQuotePortType" are bound to SOAP and HTTP.

    WSDL enjoys the support of many tools. Some help generate WSDL from existing Java and C++ classes, and others generate Java and C++ classes from WSDL documents.

    Communication Protocols
    Standards in the communication protocols area deal with message format and serialization details. In order for a receiver to correctly parse and digest a message, the format of the message must be known. In contrast to the service description area, many protocols have been published in the communication area. These protocols include XML-RPC, SOAP, the ebXML messaging specification, WDDX, and Jabber.

    XML-RPC is an XML-based RPC protocol based on HTTP POST with a simple data model that came from Userland software in 1998. Compared to SOAP it is simple; in addition to RPC, SOAP provides much richer processing semantics, an enhanced data model, and support for messaging. SOAP has garnered a great deal of attention and a huge user base.

    The ebXML messaging specification, built on top of SOAP, is one part of a set of ebXML specifications. WDDX, an effort from Allaire, is focused on providing a simple, lightweight data exchange mechanism for Web programming languages such as ColdFusion, ASP, Perl, and PHP. Though RPC semantics can be layered on top of WDDX, it isn't as widely adopted as SOAP for RPC purposes. Jabber is an open-source protocol that enables exchange of structured information in a near-real-time manner between two or more end points. Jabber is used in the instant messaging areas.

    Let's look at SOAP in detail, since it is the protocol of choice for most Web services.

    SOAP, the Protocol of Choice
    SOAP has a come a long way since its 0.9 release by Microsoft in 1999. SOAP is now handled by the W3C, which was close to publishing a last-call working draft of SOAP 1.2 at the time of this writing.

    SOAP is a lightweight XML-based communication protocol for the exchange of information in a decentralized, distributed environment. SOAP is neutral with regard to language, platform, and programming model, allowing both the sender and the receiver to operate in their environment of choice. SOAP documents can be exchanged over many transport protocols.

    The SOAP specification can be broadly classified into four main parts:

    • A framework for describing the content of a message and how to process it
    • A simple data model and a set of encoding rules for serialization
    • A convention for representing remote procedure calls and responses
    • A binding to HTTP
    The SOAP "grammar" can be best demonstrated by a SOAP message, as shown below.

    <env:Envelope xmlns:env=
    "http://www.w3.org/2001/09/soap-envelope"
    xmlns:app="www.rwav.com">
    <env:Header>
    <app:transactionId>010001</app:transactionId>
    </env:Header>

    <env:Body>
    <app:getStockQuote>
    <app:ticker>RWAV</app:ticker>
    </app:getStockQuote>
    </env:Body>
    </env:Envelope>
    In this example, the SOAP message is identified by the namespace-qualified root element "Envelope". The Envelope namespace determines the version of the SOAP specification to which a SOAP message conforms. The header element is optional; it is typically used to carry out-of-bounds information, such as transaction or security information. The header can contain any number of namespace-qualified XML elements, called entries or blocks. The above example contains one header entry named "app:trans actionId". The body element contains the essence of the message intended for the endpoint. Unlike the header element, the body element must be contained in every SOAP message; the body element can contain one or more namespace-qualified XML elements, called entries or blocks. The above example contains one application-defined body entry named "app:getStockQuote". SOAP defines one body block, called Fault, to represent errors.

    As part of its encoding rules, SOAP defines a simple data model consisting of simple types, compound types similar to structs in programming languages, an array type, and an ID/HREF type that represents references. The encoding rules define a particular serialization rule for this data model. SOAP data model and encoding rules are optional. SOAP defines an "encodingStyle" attribute under the "env" namespace, which can be used to specify a particular encoding rule in effect for a specific element or group of elements.

    Like encoding rules, the RPC conventions defined by SOAP are optional. In SOAP, both the request and the response of an RPC call are modeled as structs; they can also be modeled as arrays, according to recent changes in the SOAP specification. The name of the struct represents the name of the method being invoked. The parameters of a request or the results of an invocation are modeled as named accessors inside the struct. Our example message is an RPC request defined according to SOAP-RPC conventions. Though SOAP has defined a set of conventions for RPC, SOAP is not RPC-centric. It can be used for any general-purpose messaging.

    SOAP can be exchanged over many transport protocols, but the SOAP 1.2 specification defines a binding to HTTP and provides an e-mail binding.

    The W3C working group on SOAP is expected to publish their recommendation around August 2002. To participate or follow their progress, go to www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group.

    Complex Payloads
    So far we've looked at technologies that help create a basic XML Web service. The data exchange format and the message format in all these technologies is XML. But not all of the world's data is in XML. We have legacy systems, EDI systems, images, and many more formats. How can we use these new technologies for non-XML data? Converting all this data into XML is inefficient and time consuming; also, XML may not be the best representation for all kinds of data. For example, JPEG may make better sense for images. Even sending arbitrary XML could be a problem. We cannot simply take one XML document, insert it into another, and expect to end up with a valid XML document. Even to carry arbitrary XML in XML-based protocols such as SOAP, we need help.

    There are at least two technologies that address this space:

    • SOAP with Attachments
    • DIME
    SOAP with Attachments
    SOAP with Attachments (SwA) was an effort by a group of individuals to combine the existing SOAP and MIME technologies to facilitate carrying arbitrary data in SOAP. The W3C has published SwA as a W3C note.

    SwA doesn't introduce any new technology. Rather, it uses the referencing facilities in SOAP (HREF attribute) and Multipart MIME (RFC 2045) to make it possible to carry arbitrary data. The whole message is constructed as a multipart MIME message with the SOAP message as the root part. The MIME message can have any number of MIME parts, and the SOAP message can refer to any of these parts using the HREF attribute. In addition, the specification places a few more constraints (such as content-type and start parameter), and makes some recommendation on how the reference URIs in the HREF attribute can be resolved using existing RFCs.

    Listing 2 shows a SOAP 1.2 message with an attached facsimile image of a signed claim form (claim061400a.tiff).

    Until recently, SwA was the most popular way to carry arbitrary data in SOAP; now DIME seems to be shifting the balance. The W3C has not yet started any work on SwA.

    DIME
    DIME (Direct Internet Message Encapsulation) came from Microsoft and is published as an Internet-Draft by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). DIME is a packaging protocol for multiple binary records with a fixed format and a variable record length. DIME allows for chunking, a process in which data is streamed out without having to be held in memory to calculate the maximum length. DIME has "begin record" and "end record" boundaries so the records can be assembled in order at the receiving end. Figure 3 provides details of the DIME record structure.

    The MB, ME, and CF fields are bitmasks indicating the "begin", "chunk", and "end" of records. The Type Name field is a 3-bit field indicating the structure of the value of the type field. DIME provides a numeric value mapping for different media and MIME types. The ID field is used to give an identifier for each DIME payload. The maximum size of the data field is limited to 4GB.

     

    Microsoft has also published a companion Internet-Draft that shows how SOAP messages can use DIME to send arbitrary data. Using SOAP with DIME is somewhat similar to using SwA. In both cases, the SOAP message is wrapped in a compound structure with the SOAP message as the root or first message, and the referenced parts as the second. DIME specifies rules for resolving the URIs referenced through HREF attributes in SOAP messages; they are similar to SwA rules (RFC 2396 and 2557). DIME also adds on to SOAP-HTTP binding semantics by specifying the content-type as application/dime, rather than the default text/xml specified by SOAP.

    It's important to note that in both SwA and DIME, the SOAP message itself travels as either a MIME or DIME message with respect to the carrier or transport protocols.

    SwA Versus SOAP with DIME
    DIME is designed for simplicity, with SOAP and XML Web services in mind, while MIME offers great flexibility. DIME makes data handling a bit easier, as it requires that the data length be specified. DIME also makes parsing easier, since it's easier to identify the boundaries of different records using data length, rather than scanning for the string separators used in Multipart MIME to separate data records. The compulsory inclusion of data length may also help in heap management. DIME does not require encoding of binary data, and hence may be faster. MIME on the other hand is very flexible and well-understood, with many implementations supporting it.

    Discovery
    If programmatic discovery of Web services needs to be supported, there are a few technologies that can help:

    • WS-Inspection (WS-I)
    • UDDI
    • ebXML-Registry and Repository Specification
    UDDI has garnered as much attention as SOAP and WSDL; the three together are now considered the basic building blocks of any Web service. Though ebXML has a registry specification of its own that can be used as a standalone specification, it hasn't attracted much attention. WS-I is a companion technology to UDDI that addresses a specific purpose in the area of service discovery. I'll focus on UDDI and WS-I.

    UDDI
    UDDI (Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration) is an effort by a group of companies that hasn't yet been submitted to any other consortium or standards body. UDDI consists of an XML Schema that allows a user to provide a description of a Web service along with its business information. The description of a service in UDDI schema takes a business-centric view, whereas WSDL takes a functional view. In addition, UDDI also defines an API specification that allows a user to publish Web services and to query and obtain information on other published services. UDDI publish/ query is based on SOAP messages.

    The other face of UDDI is the repository itself. A repository implements the API specification with which users can publish or discover services. UDDI repositories are logically centralized and physically distributed. As of this writing, there are four node operators running UDDI registries: Microsoft, IBM, SAP, and HP.

    The UDDI repository implementations are open source; users could get them and run their own in-house UDDI repositories. Though UDDI was initially touted as the technology that would open the gates for dynamic discovery of Web services and dynamic collaboration, it is more and more frequently used for Intranet and in-house repository needs.

    WS-Inspection
    WS-I was a joint offering from IBM and Microsoft released in 2001. While UDDI involves going to a central place to publish and query about services, WS-I involves going to a site offering Web services and seeking information about the services offered at there.

    WS-I defines a simple grammar to aggregate service description documents of various services offered at that site. The service descriptions can be in any format, such as WSDL or UDDI. There can be many service descriptions per service, and many services can be defined in a single WS-I document. WS-I also defines an extended binding grammar for both WSDL and UDDI that provides hints about what may be found in the referred service description documents.

    WS-I makes some recommendations on how its documents may be made available to users, so they are easily found. WS-Inspection documents may also be placed within a content medium such as HTML.

    Conclusion
    So far we have looked at technologies in service description, communication protocols, complex payloads, on-site inspection, and general discovery. In the next part of this series, we will look at technologies that deal with enterprise-strength issues, such as transactions and security, and technologies that cover routing and process orchestration.

    Resources

  • W3C Note on WSDL: www.w3.org/TR/wsdl.
  • W3C Working Draft on the SOAP Messaging Framework: www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1.
  • UDDI home page: www.uddi.org.
  • IETF Network Working Group Request for Comments: www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt.
  • IETF Internet Draft on Direct Internet Message Encapsulation (DIME): http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nielsen-dime-01.txt.
  • W3C Recommendation on XML Schema, Part 1: www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1.
  • XML-RPC Specification: www.xmlrpc.com/spec.
  • OASIS ebXML Messaging Services Technical Committee: www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg.
  • The Web Distributed Data Exchange: www.openwddx.org.
  • Jabber Software Foundation: www.jabber.org.
  • W3C Note on SOAP Messages with Attachments: www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments.
  • IETF Interment Draft on Encapsulating SOAP in DIME: http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nielsen-dime-soap-00.txt.
  • Web Services Inspection Language (WS-Inspection) 1.0: www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-wsilspec.html.
  • OASIS ebXML Registry Technical Committee: www.oasis-open.org/committees/regrep/.
  • W3C Web Services Workshop position papers: www.w3.org/2001/03/wsws-popa/.
  • More Stories By Murali Janakiraman

    Murali Janakiraman is Rogue Wave's software architect for the XML Products team. He has been a developer, senior developer and tech lead on almost all of Rogue Wave's database product, including DBTools.h++, JDBTools, DBTools.h++ XA, and RWMetro. For the past five years, Murali has focused on databases, distributed transactions, andobject-relational mapping.

    Comments (0)

    Share your thoughts on this story.

    Add your comment
    You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

    In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.


    @MicroservicesExpo Stories
    How is DevOps going within your organization? If you need some help measuring just how well it is going, we have prepared a list of some key DevOps metrics to track. These metrics can help you understand how your team is doing over time. The word DevOps means different things to different people. Some say it a culture and every vendor in the industry claims that their tools help with DevOps. Depending on how you define DevOps, some of these metrics may matter more or less to you and your team.
    For many of us laboring in the fields of digital transformation, 2017 was a year of high-intensity work and high-reward achievement. So we’re looking forward to a little breather over the end-of-year holiday season. But we’re going to have to get right back on the Continuous Delivery bullet train in 2018. Markets move too fast and customer expectations elevate too precipitously for businesses to rest on their laurels. Here’s a DevOps “to-do list” for 2018 that should be priorities for anyone w...
    If testing environments are constantly unavailable and affected by outages, release timelines will be affected. You can use three metrics to measure stability events for specific environments and plan around events that will affect your critical path to release.
    In a recent post, titled “10 Surprising Facts About Cloud Computing and What It Really Is”, Zac Johnson highlighted some interesting facts about cloud computing in the SMB marketplace: Cloud Computing is up to 40 times more cost-effective for an SMB, compared to running its own IT system. 94% of SMBs have experienced security benefits in the cloud that they didn’t have with their on-premises service
    DevOps failure is a touchy subject with some, because DevOps is typically perceived as a way to avoid failure. As a result, when you fail in a DevOps practice, the situation can seem almost hopeless. However, just as a fail-fast business approach, or the “fail and adjust sooner” methodology of Agile often proves, DevOps failures are actually a step in the right direction. They’re the first step toward learning from failures and turning your DevOps practice into one that will lead you toward even...
    DevOps is under attack because developers don’t want to mess with infrastructure. They will happily own their code into production, but want to use platforms instead of raw automation. That’s changing the landscape that we understand as DevOps with both architecture concepts (CloudNative) and process redefinition (SRE). Rob Hirschfeld’s recent work in Kubernetes operations has led to the conclusion that containers and related platforms have changed the way we should be thinking about DevOps and...
    The goal of Microservices is to improve software delivery speed and increase system safety as scale increases. Microservices being modular these are faster to change and enables an evolutionary architecture where systems can change, as the business needs change. Microservices can scale elastically and by being service oriented can enable APIs natively. Microservices also reduce implementation and release cycle time and enables continuous delivery. This paper provides a logical overview of the Mi...
    While walking around the office I happened upon a relatively new employee dragging emails from his inbox into folders. I asked why and was told, “I’m just answering emails and getting stuff off my desk.” An empty inbox may be emotionally satisfying to look at, but in practice, you should never do it. Here’s why. I recently wrote a piece arguing that from a mathematical perspective, Messy Desks Are Perfectly Optimized. While it validated the genius of my friends with messy desks, it also gener...
    The next XaaS is CICDaaS. Why? Because CICD saves developers a huge amount of time. CD is an especially great option for projects that require multiple and frequent contributions to be integrated. But… securing CICD best practices is an emerging, essential, yet little understood practice for DevOps teams and their Cloud Service Providers. The only way to get CICD to work in a highly secure environment takes collaboration, patience and persistence. Building CICD in the cloud requires rigorous ar...
    The enterprise data storage marketplace is poised to become a battlefield. No longer the quiet backwater of cloud computing services, the focus of this global transition is now going from compute to storage. An overview of recent storage market history is needed to understand why this transition is important. Before 2007 and the birth of the cloud computing market we are witnessing today, the on-premise model hosted in large local data centers dominated enterprise storage. Key marketplace play...
    The cloud revolution in enterprises has very clearly crossed the phase of proof-of-concepts into a truly mainstream adoption. One of most popular enterprise-wide initiatives currently going on are “cloud migration” programs of some kind or another. Finding business value for these programs is not hard to fathom – they include hyperelasticity in infrastructure consumption, subscription based models, and agility derived from rapid speed of deployment of applications. These factors will continue to...
    Some people are directors, managers, and administrators. Others are disrupters. Eddie Webb (@edwardawebb) is an IT Disrupter for Software Development Platforms at Liberty Mutual and was a presenter at the 2016 All Day DevOps conference. His talk, Organically DevOps: Building Quality and Security into the Software Supply Chain at Liberty Mutual, looked at Liberty Mutual's transformation to Continuous Integration, Continuous Delivery, and DevOps. For a large, heavily regulated industry, this task ...
    Following a tradition dating back to 2002 at ZapThink and continuing at Intellyx since 2014, it’s time for Intellyx’s annual predictions for the coming year. If you’re a long-time fan, you know we have a twist to the typical annual prediction post: we actually critique our predictions from the previous year. To make things even more interesting, Charlie and I switch off, judging the other’s predictions. And now that he’s been with Intellyx for more than a year, this Cortex represents my first ...
    "Grape Up leverages Cloud Native technologies and helps companies build software using microservices, and work the DevOps agile way. We've been doing digital innovation for the last 12 years," explained Daniel Heckman, of Grape Up in this SYS-CON.tv interview at 21st Cloud Expo, held Oct 31 – Nov 2, 2017, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA.
    The Toyota Production System, a world-renowned production system is based on the "complete elimination of all waste". The "Toyota Way", grounded on continuous improvement dates to the 1860s. The methodology is widely proven to be successful yet there are still industries within and tangential to manufacturing struggling to adopt its core principles: Jidoka: a process should stop when an issue is identified prevents releasing defective products
    Defining the term ‘monitoring’ is a difficult task considering the performance space has evolved significantly over the years. Lately, there has been a shift in the monitoring world, sparking a healthy debate regarding the definition and purpose of monitoring, through which a new term has emerged: observability. Some of that debate can be found in blogs by Charity Majors and Cindy Sridharan.
    We seem to run this cycle with every new technology that comes along. A good idea with practical applications is born, then both marketers and over-excited users start to declare it is the solution for all or our problems. Compliments of Gartner, we know it generally as “The Hype Cycle”, but each iteration is a little different. 2018’s flavor will be serverless computing, and by 2018, I mean starting now, but going most of next year, you’ll be sick of it. We are already seeing people write such...
    It’s “time to move on from DevOps and continuous delivery.” This was the provocative title of a recent article in ZDNet, in which Kelsey Hightower, staff developer advocate at Google Cloud Platform, suggested that “software shops should have put these concepts into action years ago.” Reading articles like this or listening to talks at most DevOps conferences might make you think that we’re entering a post-DevOps world. But vast numbers of organizations still struggle to start and drive transfo...
    Let's do a visualization exercise. Imagine it's December 31, 2018, and you're ringing in the New Year with your friends and family. You think back on everything that you accomplished in the last year: your company's revenue is through the roof thanks to the success of your product, and you were promoted to Lead Developer. 2019 is poised to be an even bigger year for your company because you have the tools and insight to scale as quickly as demand requires. You're a happy human, and it's not just...
    "Opsani helps the enterprise adopt containers, help them move their infrastructure into this modern world of DevOps, accelerate the delivery of new features into production, and really get them going on the container path," explained Ross Schibler, CEO of Opsani, and Peter Nickolov, CTO of Opsani, in this SYS-CON.tv interview at DevOps Summit at 21st Cloud Expo, held Oct 31 – Nov 2, 2017, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA.