是否有UDDI或RESTful Web服务的任何其他注册表 [英] Is there an UDDI or any other registry for RESTful Webservices

问题描述

Restful Webservices是否有像UDDI这样的服务注册中心?还是UDDI也可以容纳Restful Web服务?

Does Restful Webservices have any service registries like the UDDI? Or can UDDI hold Restful Webservices as well?

推荐答案

UDDI可用于REST服务. WSDL可以用来描述HTTP Web服务，但是坦率地说，我认为这不是REST资源体系结构的真正匹配.

UDDI can be used for REST services. WSDLs can be used to described HTTP web services, but frankly I feel that it's not a real match for a REST resource architecture.

在最基本的级别上，UDDI只是将属性映射到服务端点.因此，如果您只是在寻找可以做到这一点的系统，那么UDDI就是您的理想选择.

At a most basic level, UDDI is simply mapping of attributes to service endpoints. So, if you're simply looking for a system that can do that, then UDDI will fit the bill.

UDDI在狂野的，开放的互联网中并不流行，但是它被用作幕后"的编排组件.

UDDI is not popular in the wild, wide open internet, but it is used "behind the scenes" as an orchestration component.

如Darrel所述，DNS是另一种有效的发现机制.

As Darrel mentioned, DNS is another valid discovery mechanism.

我对DNS的个人抱怨只是，即使DNS引用了他所引用的文章中提到的所有优点，但不利之处在于DNS是网络结构的关键部分，开发人员往往无法使用它. .通常，网络运营人员(往往比DBA还要臭名昭著)拥有像DNS这样的基础设施.最后，尽管DNS完全能够执行这些任务，但在许多情况下，可能需要更改DNS的标准默认配置和部署.例如，我们已经开始从DNS提供证书，并且必须为DNS启用TCP.再次，这意味着网络运营商会更多地参与其中.

My personal complaint with DNS is simply that even though DNS has all of the advantages that's mentioned in the article he cites, the downside is that DNS is such a critical part of the network fabric, it tends to not be available to developers. Typically, the network operations folks (who tend to be more notorious than even DBAs) hold infrastructure like DNS quite close. Finally, while DNS is quite capable of these tasks, in many cases the standard default configuration and deployment of DNS may need to be changed. For example, We've started serving certificates from DNS, for example, and we had to enable TCP for DNS. Again, this meant more involvement of network ops.

最重要的是，尽管世界上有大量的DNS专业知识和知识，但HTTP和Web服务器上做事"的知识和专业知识却要大得多.这样的后果仅意味着，当开发人员考虑并寻求某种解决方案时，他们首先想到的可能是基于HTTP的解决方案.

On top of that, while there is a lot of expertise and knowledge of DNS out in the world, knowledge and expertise of HTTP and "doing stuff" on a web server is far greater. That consequences of that simply means that when developers think about and look to some kind of solution to this problem, the first place they're going to look is likely an HTTP based solution.

因此，从某种意义上来说，UDDI可能是一个更好的解决方案，就可以轻松地快速推出它而言.

So, in that sense UDDI is possibly a better solution, just in terms of being able to get it rolled out quickly with little hassle.

当然，UDDI是基于SOAP的服务.确实，这没什么大不了的.不太适合RESTful系统，但这并不可怕.功能性，如果有些不纯净".

Of course, UDDI is a SOAP based service. That's not that big a deal, really. Not a great fit for a RESTful system, but it's not awful. Functional, if a little "impure".

对于基于标准HTTP的服务注册表，我一无所知.例如，合理地简单地简单地将其与HTML结合起来. UDDI尚未在世界范围内普及，这并不是对UDDI的限制或轻微限制.相反，发现任意服务的愿景并没有真正实现，根本就不存在需求.除了位置和语义(例如业务关系等)之外，服务发现还有更多的带外参与.

As for a standard HTTP based service registry, there's nothing that I know of. It's reasonably simply to adhoc one simply with HTML, for example. The fact that UDDI hasn't taken off in the World at large isn't so much a limitation or slight against UDDI. Rather it's simply that the vision of discovering arbitrary services hasn't really come to fruition, the need simply isn't quite there. There's a lot more involved out of band with service discovery beyond location and semantics, like business relationships and such.

在企业内部，解决了这些物流问题，因此服务发现具有价值.出门在外，没那么多.

Internally, within the enterprise, those logistics are solved, so service discovery has value. Out in the wild, not so much.

这篇关于是否有UDDI或RESTful Web服务的任何其他注册表的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！