- From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:11:22 -0400
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Mike Champion" <mc@xegesis.org>
- Cc: <www-ws@w3.org>
Mark, Although it's conceivable that people might want to build an intermediary dedicated to processing a specific type of SOAP message, it's not the normal practice. There are a host of Web services management products now on the market that are generic SOAP/XML intermediaries. These systems intercept messages en route and perform actions based on a set of business rules. They can do things such as routing, caching, auditing, logging, message transformation, security checking, metering, monitoring, and business analysis. It is a tremendously visible environment. Your visibility argument simply doesn't hold water. If anything, XML provides more visibility than HTTP headers. Anne > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of > Mark Baker > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 11:23 AM > To: Mike Champion > Cc: www-ws@w3.org > Subject: Re: Explaining visibility, take 54 > > > > On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 10:42:15AM -0400, Mike Champion wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Uhh, OK, but what's the point? An intermediary by definition is a "3rd > > party" component that doesn't understand the application-specific data > > format (such as that WSDL describes), so "B" and "C" are oxymorons. > > Aha!! No, that's not the case. > > "Third party" just means a party distinct from the other two (e.g. > a cache between a client and server). It doesn't suggest anything > about restricting what that intermediary can do. > > It is possible for an intermediary to be written that has knowledge of > some application interface. Those intermediaries have much higher > visibility into the interactions between components that are using the > same application interface, than they would if it were between > components using a different application interface. > > MB > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca > Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis >
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 12:11:28 UTC