However, UDDI's design is very niave relative compared to DNS. You could extend DNS zone servers to offer web service endpoint information much as DNSsec includes public key information for SSH. DNS is truly distributed as well. The public DNS network would carry the Web service specific DNS records as well as the regular records.
LDAP is also a better registry source than UDDI. SoapRMI (now XSOAP) has the ability to use LDAP as a service registry. So, I think registries are important, but UDDI's design isn't good enough, and other extensible registries already exist and are widespread. On Mon, 27 May 2002, Nilesh Kumar, Koratpallikar wrote: > I agree that UDDI is just a part of the entire webservice framework, but > definitely an imporant one. > > In your mail, you are trying to distinguish between "SOAPizing" and > "Webservizing". I think they are essentially the same. when you look at the > definition SOAP itself(HTTP +XML), web is an inherent feature of SOAP. In > that sense its natural to "publish" and "locate" SOAP service on the web. > > One alalogy of UDDI that comes to my mind is that of DNS(Domain Naming > service), it enables you to resolve a url name to a IP address. Similary a > UDDI service maps a webservice to its deployed location on the web. > > Also, another advantage of UDDI is automation, when you want to have > seamless connectivity from end to end. i.e use UDDI to locate a webservice, > then use WSDL to look at the published services and then invoke the desired > methods on the service. > > hope this helps > > nilesh >
