- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:36:40 -0600
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
- cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
IMHO he has indeed answered you, he just hasn't agreed with you. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 1:09 AM 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 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 11:37:22 UTC