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

Explaining visibility, take 54

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 08:25:29 -0400
To: www-ws@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030509082529.D13530@www.markbaker.ca>

Let's say you have a WSDL document which describes some service, and a
client and server hardcoded to that WSDL.

Visibility, as an architectural property, refers to the ability of a
third party component to monitor interactions between other
components.[1]

So which of these third parties would you say is better able to monitor
the interactions between the aforementioned client and server?

A.  A generic SOAP/XML intermediary
B.  An intermediary hardcoded to the WSDL document above
C.  An intermediary hardcoded to some other WSDL document

I suggest that B has vastly superior visibility to A or C.

 [1] http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/net_app_arch.htm#sec_2_3_5

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 08:40:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:42 GMT