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

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

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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:08 UTC