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

Re: Explaining visibility, take 54

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 11:23:05 -0400
To: Mike Champion <mc@xegesis.org>
Cc: www-ws@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030509112305.I13530@www.markbaker.ca>

On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 10:42:15AM -0400, Mike Champion wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Uhh, OK, but what's the point?  An intermediary by definition is a "3rd 
> party" component that doesn't understand the application-specific data 
> format (such as that WSDL describes), so "B" and "C" are oxymorons.

Aha!!  No, that's not the case.

"Third party" just means a party distinct from the other two (e.g.
a cache between a client and server).  It doesn't suggest anything
about restricting what that intermediary can do.

It is possible for an intermediary to be written that has knowledge of
some application interface.  Those intermediaries have much higher
visibility into the interactions between components that are using the
same application interface, than they would if it were between
components using a different application interface.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 11:20:59 GMT

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