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

Re: Summing up on visibility(?)

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 16:57:54 -0500
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: Miles Sabin <miles@milessabin.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF289AEC21.0B468F1D-ON85256CA9.00778646-85256CA9.007880F5@rchland.ibm.com>
Mark,

This started out with an example using POST. You promptly changed it to 
PUT
but none of this addressed the point I was attempting to make with POST.

While I would agree that having PUT do something other than PUT semantics
would be undesireable, my point was related to POST which has fairly 
flexible
semantics and the case where I could accept more than one type of entity 
body
on a POST to a given URI. 

I'm still waiting for an answer and I don't believe that my original point 
had anything
to do with visibility, which I believe to be a red herring. Certainly, 
there is more "visibility"
to an intermediary that is inspecting HTTP headers, etc. but as has been 
mentioned
on this thread, there are increasing numbers of proxies and firewalls that 
can parse
SOAP messages, etc.

I'd be interested in you responding to my original point.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 01/09/2003 02:31:13 PM:

> 
> Ok, I *really* don't want to open this up again full-blown, but I just
> have to ask ...
> 
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 07:15:01PM +0000, Miles Sabin wrote:
> > Well, I don't believe that application-level semantics are likely to 
be 
> > accessible to anything, intermediary or otherwise, without it having 
> > some sort of prior knowledge of those semantics (this is just the good 

> > ol' end-to-end principle).
> 
> Wouldn't the prior knowledge of HTTP application semantics by an HTTP
> intermediary qualify?  I would agree that, for example, an SMTP message
> isn't visible to an HTTP intermediary.  But there's shared knowledge
> on application semantics in the HTTP/HTTP case.
> 
> I'm not trying to conclude the previous thread.  Just hoping that we can
> find agreement on *some* degree of loss in visibility with the method
> in the body.
> 
> MB
> -- 
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
> Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
> 
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 16:58:50 GMT

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