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

Re: Proposed issue; Visibility of Web services

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 09:47:14 -0400
To: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Cc: www-ws@w3.org, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Message-ID: <20030527094714.G31140@www.markbaker.ca>

Anne,

On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 08:28:36AM -0400, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> Mark,
> 
> I don't think we ever came to this agreement.

Well, Mike appeared to agree, despite having a misconception about
intermediaries;

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws/2003May/0017.html

But if I misunderstood his reaction, that's ok.  My point remains.

> (We did agree that hardcoded intermediary are
> pretty pointless.)

Only in the case of Web services.

Hardcoded intermediaries are valuable, so long as they're hardcoded to a
generic application; the more generic the application, the more valuable
the intermediary.  Since Web services interfaces are specific to the
service, rather than generic like on the Web, I can completely
understand why you believe that hardcoded intermediaries are pointless.
But that doesn't mean that all of them are.

Thanks.

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 09:44:25 GMT

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