- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 08:15:17 -0700
- To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
The first 5 items - security, extensibility, evolvability, performance, understandability - all mention that visibility makes it easier. I assert easier=simplicity+perf. If visibility should be factored as a separate property to highlight the need, so beit. Though it's still redundant, which doesn't mean it's not important. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Mark Baker > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 5:54 PM > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: Re: Proposed text for section 1.6.2 and 1.6.3 > > > > Visibility redundant? My goodness. IMO, it's the single > most important > property than an Internet scale architecture can have. Roy > just wrote a > bit about it, in fact; > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/3649 > > That's my last word on visibility until after publication. > > On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 02:33:18PM -0700, David Orchard wrote: > > Indeed, I had rebutted this point earlier. REST has better > visibility only > > for single protocol solutions, where visibility is defined > to be the ability > > to determine the method. I actually think that this > property is redundant, > > as it is devolves to either the performance of the > intermediary or the > > simplicity of the configuration of the intermediary. Which > are covered in > > the perf and simplicity properties. > > MB > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca > Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis > >
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 11:13:33 UTC