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 22:36:41 -0800
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <018d01c2def3$c0e382b0$770ba8c0@beasys.com>

And now I'll answer the first paragraph.  Visibility is a degree of
visibility, not an absolute yes/no.  Firewalls will look at many things in
messages, like ip addresses, http methods, URIs, port #s, etc.

Even if the method name goes in the SOAP envelope, it's still visible to the
intermediary.  It may be harder than if the method wasn't.  I think you are
purposefully avoiding the simplicity argument that goes along with multiple
protocols.  There is a trade-off in properties at play.  Roughly it's
simplicity vs visibility and performance.

And that's all these years long discussion has ever been about, trade-offs
between properties.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Baker
> 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 01:39:46 GMT

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