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

RE: Proposed issue; Visibility of Web services

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 10:25:58 -0700
To: "'Anne Thomas Manes'" <anne@manes.net>
Cc: <www-ws@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003601c32475$0a26bbb0$fefb000a@beasys.com>

So why do you play the game Anne?  And Mike?  IMO, there's been nothing new
discovered in the past dozen messages on this thread.  And it's probably
distracted a number of members of various WGs somewhat from helping progress
their documents.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Anne Thomas Manes
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 9:15 AM
> To: Mark Baker
> Cc: www-ws@w3.org; noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Subject: Re: Proposed issue; Visibility of Web services
>
>
>
> Mark,
>
> I'm sorry -- but I just don't see how you view Mike's response as
> "agreement". I interpret his response to say that "hardcoded"
> intermediaries
> are pointless (given the definition that the intermediary is
> hardcoded to a
> specific WSDL document -- as you originally suggested).
>
> With this message you seem to be changing your definition. Now you are
> talking about "hardcoded to a generic application". Per this
> new definition,
> all Web services management products qualify as a "hardcoded" SOAP
> intermediary. They are hardcoded to process generic SOAP messages.
>
> This word game is getting tiresome, though.
>
> Anne
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
> To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
> Cc: <www-ws@w3.org>; <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 9:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposed issue; Visibility of Web services
>
>
> >
> > 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 13:24:47 GMT

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