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

Re: Explaining visibility, take 54

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 07:47:43 -0400
To: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Cc: www-ws@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030511074743.R13530@www.markbaker.ca>

On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 12:11:22PM -0400, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> Mark,
> Although it's conceivable that people might want to build an intermediary
> dedicated to processing a specific type of SOAP message, it's not the normal
> practice.

I agree, but IMO that's beside the point.

The purpose of my initial message in this thread was to highlight that
*IF* an intermediary were programmed to understand a specific type of
SOAP interface, necessarily), *THEN* it would have vastly superior
visibility to one that didn't.

For example, a stock quote analysis intermediary would have better
visibility when placed between a stock quote client and a stock quote
server, than it would between a cake baking client and a cake baking

Do you not agree?

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
  Actively seeking contract work or employment
Received on Sunday, 11 May 2003 07:45:33 UTC

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