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

Visibility

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 08:15:17 -0700
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004001c31574$a3e29130$ea0ba8c0@beasys.com>

The first 5 items - security, extensibility, evolvability, performance,
understandability - all mention that visibility makes it easier.  I assert
easier=simplicity+perf.

If visibility should be factored as a separate property to highlight the
need, so beit.  Though it's still redundant, which doesn't mean it's not
important.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 5:54 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3
>
>
>
> Visibility redundant?  My goodness.  IMO, it's the single
> most important
> property than an Internet scale architecture can have.  Roy
> just wrote a
> bit about it, in fact;
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/3649
>
> That's my last word on visibility until after publication.
>
> On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 02:33:18PM -0700, David Orchard wrote:
> > Indeed, I had rebutted this point earlier.  REST has better
> visibility only
> > for single protocol solutions, where visibility is defined
> to be the ability
> > to determine the method.  I actually think that this
> property is redundant,
> > as it is devolves to either the performance of the
> intermediary or the
> > simplicity of the configuration of the intermediary.  Which
> are covered in
> > the perf and simplicity properties.
>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
> Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
>
>
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 11:13:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:18 GMT