- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:41:05 -0800
- To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Visibility may or may not be improved. For single protocols, visibility is improved with use of GET, PUT, DELETE - not POST as Chris Ferris explained. But for multi-protocol, visibility may be improved by other means. Cheers, dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:12 AM > To: David Orchard > Cc: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: Re: Visibility (was Re: Introducing the Service Oriented > Architec tural style, and it's constraints and properties. > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:51:52PM -0800, David Orchard wrote: > > Mike, I agree with you. I believe that the statement > should read "can be > > less simple to configure and degrade network and perceived > performance". > > This focuses the issue on simplicity and performance > impacts of visibility. > > As an example of the XPath usage, instead of cache "GET on > URI X", it's > > cache on "XYZ on URI X with XPath Foo=true". Obviously > this won't work if > > the message is encrypted. I think the trade-off is clear. > Caching of just > > a URI is simpler than with XPath, but certainly not insurmountable. > > Fair enough. But do you agree with Mike that visibility is *improved* > by the SOA style, or not? You previously claimed it was reduced. > > MB > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca > Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis >
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 16:49:54 UTC