- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 02:09:15 -0500
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:36:41PM -0800, David Orchard wrote: > And now I'll answer the first paragraph. Visibility is a degree of > visibility, not an absolute yes/no. Of course. > Firewalls will look at many things in > messages, like ip addresses, http methods, URIs, port #s, etc. Sure. > Even if the method name goes in the SOAP envelope, it's still visible to the > intermediary. No, it isn't. It isn't enough that the string "FOO" can be run through some parser, because anything can be run through a parser. The issue is, does the app have prior knowledge of that what that string means? > 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. I'm not saying that other properties weren't improved upon - perhaps they were, in spades, I don't know. I'm just asking about visibility; is there less visibility with the SOA style than with the REST style? You're not going to answer that, are you? 8-/ MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 02:05:53 UTC