- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 09:47:14 -0400
- To: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
- Cc: www-ws@w3.org, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Anne, On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 08:28:36AM -0400, Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > Mark, > > I don't think we ever came to this agreement. Well, Mike appeared to agree, despite having a misconception about intermediaries; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws/2003May/0017.html But if I misunderstood his reaction, that's ok. My point remains. > (We did agree that hardcoded intermediary are > pretty pointless.) Only in the case of Web services. Hardcoded intermediaries are valuable, so long as they're hardcoded to a generic application; the more generic the application, the more valuable the intermediary. Since Web services interfaces are specific to the service, rather than generic like on the Web, I can completely understand why you believe that hardcoded intermediaries are pointless. But that doesn't mean that all of them are. Thanks. MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis Actively seeking contract work or employment
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2003 09:44:25 UTC