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

Re: Proposed issue; Visibility of Web services

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 08:28:36 -0400
Message-ID: <017501c3244b$80b21f10$6f01a8c0@TPX21>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Www-Ws@W3. Org" <www-ws@w3.org>
Cc: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>


I don't think we ever came to this agreement. As many of us tried to explain
to you, a generic intermediary has as much visibility into a SOAP message as
a hardcoded intermediary. (We did agree that hardcoded intermediary are
pretty pointless.)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
To: <www-ws@w3.org>
Cc: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed issue; Visibility of Web services


> In a recent thread here, I believe it was agreed that a SOAP
> intermediary hardcoded to have specific knowledge of a given WSDL file,
> had better visibility into the interactions between clients and servers
> using that same WSDL file, than did a generic SOAP intermediary, or a
> SOAP intermediary hardcoded to some other WSDL file.  That's exactly the
> kind of increase in visibility that using an application protocol
> provides.
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
> Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
>   Actively seeking contract work or employment
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2003 08:28:46 UTC

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