W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Visibility (was Re: Introducing the Service Oriented Architec tural style, and it's constraints and properties.

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:41:05 -0800
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005b01c2dd17$6d334ca0$550ba8c0@beasys.com>

Visibility may or may not be improved.  For single protocols, visibility is
improved with use of GET, PUT, DELETE - not POST as Chris Ferris explained.
But for multi-protocol, visibility may be improved by other means.

Cheers,
dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:12 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Visibility (was Re: Introducing the Service Oriented
> Architec tural style, and it's constraints and properties.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:51:52PM -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> > Mike, I agree with you.  I believe that the statement
> should read "can be
> > less simple to configure and degrade network and perceived
> performance".
> > This focuses the issue on simplicity and performance
> impacts of visibility.
> > As an example of the XPath usage, instead of cache "GET on
> URI X", it's
> > cache on "XYZ on URI X with XPath Foo=true".  Obviously
> this won't work if
> > the message is encrypted.  I think the trade-off is clear.
> Caching of just
> > a URI is simpler than with XPath, but certainly not insurmountable.
>
> Fair enough.  But do you agree with Mike that visibility is *improved*
> by the SOA style, or not?  You previously claimed it was reduced.
>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
> Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 16:49:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:15 GMT