- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:48:46 -0500
- To: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFBB73A8A7.39F80D98-ON85256CD8.0054C33F-85256CD8.0056DB47@us.ibm.com>
Mark Baker wrote on 02/25/2003 10:26:30 AM: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Champion, Mike wrote: <snip/> > > > OK, Mark, Walden, or whoever ... what don't you like about that? > > I like what's there. I don't like what's not there. 8-O > > What's not in there, is any mention of the issue of what the impact is > on visibility, of using methods/operations/actions other than the > methods of the underlying application protocol. Roy and I say this > reduces visibility. Even Dave seemed to agree when he wrote; > > "The RESTful SOA has the advantage better visibility, as the firewall can > simply examine the generic interface to determine the action being > performed." > -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Feb/0055 > > MB > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca > Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis > Okay, let me ask once more, what is the action being performed on a HTTP POST? The RFC specifically states that it is determined by the server and can be just about anything it wants it to mean. There may be apparent visibility, but in truth, there is none. All that can be said of the HTTP POST method is that the method is not GET, PUT, DELETE, HEAD or OPTIONS. If anything, when using POST, having the entity body well understood and easily parsable increases visibility rather than reducing it. Ad hoc entity body or various form encoding is IMO far less visible because it is not standardized. As has been pointed out, Web services is also not exclusive to HTTP and one of the objectives is that the service should be capable of being bound to any number of underlying protocols without requiring that the service itself be changed. As always, there are trade-offs and it may just be the case (as I believe that it is) that this is one such case where the benefits of NOT having to have application software be written specially for each underlying protocol might just outweigh the perceived loss of visibility that you seem so intent on insisting that we are imposing on ourselves because we just don't get it like you do. Cheers, Christopher Ferris Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com phone: +1 508 234 3624
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 10:49:41 UTC