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: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:30:16 -0800
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <018c01c2def2$dcdf0350$770ba8c0@beasys.com>

It depends.

As I said before, in a straight up single protocol, like HTTP, visibility is
better with REST.  In a multi-protocol environment, it may be harder to
configure and have equal visibility in REST.  In particular, SOA is probably
easier to configure due to the uniformity of the service interface across
protocols.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:27 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Visibility (was Re: Introducing the Service Oriented
> Architec tural style, and it's constraints and properties.
>
>
> Ok, but I don't see how that matters at all.  So long as no
> method name
> goes in the SOAP envelope, the semantics of the message will
> be visible
> to any intermediary that understands the application protocol on which
> that envelope arrived, independant of the number of protocols
> it may or
> may not understand.
>
> I'm a tad frustrated, as you appear to be avoiding the question.  So
> I'll just ask it again, directly; is the visibility of the SOA
> architectural style you described, better, worse, or the same
> as, REST?
>
> Thanks.
>
> MB
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 10:14:37AM -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> > Imagine that an intermediary that has to deal with multiple
> protocols.  So
> > it has to be configured with understanding multi-protocols.
>  In the same way
> > there are "HTTP Routers" that understand 1 protocol, "SOAP Routers"
> > understand many protocols that SOAP is layered upon.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dave
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:50 PM
> > > To: David Orchard
> > > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: Visibility (was Re: Introducing the Service Oriented
> > > Architec tural style, and it's constraints and properties.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 10:41:05AM -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, but I don't understand what that means.
> > >
> > > What do you mean by single vs. multi protocols?
> > >
> > > MB
> > > --
> > > Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.
http://www.markbaker.ca
> > Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
> >
>

--
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 01:33:24 GMT

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