- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:36:41 -0800
- To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
And now I'll answer the first paragraph. Visibility is a degree of visibility, not an absolute yes/no. Firewalls will look at many things in messages, like ip addresses, http methods, URIs, port #s, etc. Even if the method name goes in the SOAP envelope, it's still visible to the intermediary. It may be harder than if the method wasn't. I think you are purposefully avoiding the simplicity argument that goes along with multiple protocols. There is a trade-off in properties at play. Roughly it's simplicity vs visibility and performance. And that's all these years long discussion has ever been about, trade-offs between properties. Cheers, Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Mark Baker > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:27 PM > To: David Orchard > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: Re: Visibility (was Re: Introducing the Service Oriented > Architec tural style, and it's constraints and properties. > > > > Ok, but I don't see how that matters at all. So long as no > method name > goes in the SOAP envelope, the semantics of the message will > be visible > to any intermediary that understands the application protocol on which > that envelope arrived, independant of the number of protocols > it may or > may not understand. > > I'm a tad frustrated, as you appear to be avoiding the question. So > I'll just ask it again, directly; is the visibility of the SOA > architectural style you described, better, worse, or the same > as, REST? > > Thanks. > > MB > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 10:14:37AM -0800, David Orchard wrote: > > Imagine that an intermediary that has to deal with multiple > protocols. So > > it has to be configured with understanding multi-protocols. > In the same way > > there are "HTTP Routers" that understand 1 protocol, "SOAP Routers" > > understand many protocols that SOAP is layered upon. > > > > Cheers, > > Dave > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:50 PM > > > To: David Orchard > > > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org > > > Subject: Re: Visibility (was Re: Introducing the Service Oriented > > > Architec tural style, and it's constraints and properties. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 10:41:05AM -0800, David Orchard wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > I'm sorry, but I don't understand what that means. > > > > > > What do you mean by single vs. multi protocols? > > > > > > MB > > > -- > > > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca > > Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis > > > -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 01:39:46 UTC