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 22:40:38 -0400
Message-ID: <00d501c324c2$8d61ad30$6f01a8c0@TPX21>
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws@w3.org>

+1.

Have we beaten this trout to death yet? It certainly seems like it. We've
stated our case numerous times that we believe that SOAP messages offer
excellent visibility. You have a different opinion. Enough said.

Let's let this trout REST in peace now.

Anne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
To: <www-ws@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 9:03 PM
Subject: RE: Proposed issue; Visibility of Web services


>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> > Mark Baker
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:58 PM
> > To: Anne Thomas Manes
> > Cc: www-ws@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Proposed issue; Visibility of Web services
> >
>
>
> > But remember that visibility is an architectural property, not a
> > property of any particular application semantic.  Tunneling over POST
> > breaks the constraints of REST, so it isn't valid to assert that REST
> > doesn't have superior visibility than "open interface SOAs" because
> > HTTP POST is tunneled over.
>
> I really think you've made your point, Mark.  This conversation is going
> around in very familiar circles (hmm, it looks like Noah and Chris have
made
> similar points).  You've asked the TAG to take this as an issue, and  they
> can decide whether there is a fundamental Web architecture issue at stake
> here.  If by any chance they do, I'm quite confident that they will come
to
> agree that XML and SOAP offer visibility benefits that are not possible
with
> opaque message payloads, and hence this issue is moot.
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2003 02:52:58 GMT

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