- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:02:43 -0500
- To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Cc: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 11:55:14AM -0500, Champion, Mike wrote: > Hmmm .... I said: > > > To the extent that Web intermediaries can make > > cacheing, routing, and filtering decisions based on IP address, TCP > > port number, or HTTP URIs, headers, and methods, they will be easier > > to implement and more robust across platforms or time, and can work > > even if the format of the message body is unknown or encrypted. > > Dave said: > > > "The RESTful SOA has the advantage better visibility, as the > > firewall can > > simply examine the generic interface to determine the action being > > performed." > > OK, Dave's is a bit less pedantic :-) but don't they say more or less the > same thing? Hmm, I don't think so. Dave's offers a comparison; REST is more visible than WSA/SOA. Yours seems to simply say "REST is visible". > But overall, it sounds like we're within striking distance of wording that > would be at least minimally acceptable to both the SOA and REST sides. > That's good! I hope so, but fear not. I think what's missing from your proposal is the most important part, even if I end up disagreeing with it. IMO, the architecture document needs to be able to need to be able to tell developers one of these things; - if getting over firewalls is important to you, REST is better than SOA - if getting over firewalls is important to you, SOA is better than REST - REST and SOA systems can both traverse firewalls without any trouble Thanks. MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 22:59:28 UTC