- From: Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:39:52 -0700
- To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
- Cc: "Cutler, Roger \(RogerCutler\)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, "Brian Connell" <brian@westglobal.com>, "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
While I quite like application-to-application, as that has been the focus of my work for the last xx years, I do believe that machine-to-machine is now part of the `vernacular'. I also do not believe that this is worth losing any sleep over! Frank On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 10:04 AM, Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > > Why not replace "machine-to-machine" with "application-to-application"? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com> > To: "Brian Connell" <brian@westglobal.com>; "David Booth" > <dbooth@w3.org>; > <www-ws-arch@w3.org> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 12:28 PM > Subject: RE: Draft definition of WS > > >> >> The point is valid, but I think that just about everybody agrees that >> the basic intention behind "designed to support machine-to-machine >> ..." >> is extremely important. That's essentially what separates Web >> services >> from ugly things like screen scraping Web sites. >> >> I personally do not think that the current phrasing implies that it >> can't be used on the same machine -- just that the common usage >> pattern >> is different machines. Recall, however, that I essentially brought up >> the same point objecting to introducing the word "remote" into the >> definition. >> >> I think that removing "machine-to-machine" altogether would be a very >> bad idea, but some sort of recognition somewhere that interactions on >> the same machine are "OK" would be useful. I don't think that anybody >> would object to a specific Web service implementation that, for some >> good reason, was not actually exposed to other machines. The >> potential >> would exist, of course, to expose it -- one can just turn that off if >> appropriate. >> >> Doesn't this sort of come under the security umbrella? That is, >> controlling the scope to which the service is exposed, with one >> extreme >> being no network exposure whatsoever? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brian Connell [mailto:brian@westglobal.com] >> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 10:43 AM >> To: David Booth; www-ws-arch@w3.org >> Subject: RE: Draft definition of WS >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I have an issue I would like to raise with the phrase >> 'machine-to-machine'. >> >>> A Web service is a software system, designed to support >>> machine-to-machine interaction over a network, >> >> This implies that a Web service is not designed to be used if the >> software systems are interacting on the same machine (even using the >> same processor). >> >> Can I suggest that we remove the 'machine-to-machine' term altogether, >> or that we further qualify the word 'interaction' in a way that >> includes >> software systems on the same 'machine'. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Brian Connell >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 13:40:57 UTC