- From: Miles Sabin <miles@milessabin.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:54:29 +0000
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Assaf Arkin wrote, > Miles Sabin wrote, > > So there's a gap between the parties which are making the visible > > commitments (the WS adapters) and the parties which are ultimately > > responsible for meeting them (the endpoints). Whether that gap is > > narrow and/or easily bridged, or an all consuming abyss is likely > > to vary on a case-by-case basis. I'm sure many of us on this list > > have experienced both. > > You have to decide what is the service and what is the application. > If you have a message handler there that allows your application to > receive messages over HTTP, the message handler is not the service. > It's a proxy that takes care of the HTTP/SOAP/etc details on behalf > of the actual service. That's the ideal, certainly. But the reality is that this is often very hard to do. In a not completely implausible senario we might have, say, seven largely independent organizations involved: the legacy system vendor, the two sites which deploy that system, two consultancies providing the WS gateways (one at each site), each using a WS toolkit from a different WS tool vendor. In such circumstances clarity on the boundary between service and application is going to take a lot of work. If differences of opinion or outlook, or miscommunication, show through in the protocol or the way the protocol is used, then RM is likely to be the least of anyone's worries. Cheers, Miles
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 08:55:02 UTC