- From: Geoff Arnold <Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM>
- Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 10:32:25 -0400
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@ACM.ORG>
- Cc: www-ws@w3.org
On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 08:25 AM, Mark Baker wrote: > > Let's say you have a WSDL document which describes some service, and a > client and server hardcoded to that WSDL. > > Visibility, as an architectural property, refers to the ability of a > third party component to monitor interactions between other > components.[1] > > So which of these third parties would you say is better able to monitor > the interactions between the aforementioned client and server? > > A. A generic SOAP/XML intermediary > B. An intermediary hardcoded to the WSDL document above > C. An intermediary hardcoded to some other WSDL document > > I suggest that B has vastly superior visibility to A or C. > Visibility may be important for several different reasons. If you want "semantically deep" visibility into the messages, B will certainly provide that. On the other hand, if you want to detect non-compliance and interface evolution, A is probably superior. I would also note that a system in which multiple components are hardcoded to specific metadata (WSDL, schema, whatever) is intrinsically "brittle". One of the benefits of SOA web services over (say) CORBA is the opportunity for later binding and greater robustness in the face of change. (Remember: at large scale, version skew is a way of life.) IMHO, your strawman scenario represents poor practice, and should be deprecated rather than driving WS architecture.....
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 10:34:37 UTC