RE: Proposed issue; Visibility of Web services

So why do you play the game Anne?  And Mike?  IMO, there's been nothing new
discovered in the past dozen messages on this thread.  And it's probably
distracted a number of members of various WGs somewhat from helping progress
their documents.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Anne Thomas Manes
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 9:15 AM
> To: Mark Baker
> Cc: www-ws@w3.org; noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Subject: Re: Proposed issue; Visibility of Web services
>
>
>
> Mark,
>
> I'm sorry -- but I just don't see how you view Mike's response as
> "agreement". I interpret his response to say that "hardcoded"
> intermediaries
> are pointless (given the definition that the intermediary is
> hardcoded to a
> specific WSDL document -- as you originally suggested).
>
> With this message you seem to be changing your definition. Now you are
> talking about "hardcoded to a generic application". Per this
> new definition,
> all Web services management products qualify as a "hardcoded" SOAP
> intermediary. They are hardcoded to process generic SOAP messages.
>
> This word game is getting tiresome, though.
>
> Anne
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
> To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
> Cc: <www-ws@w3.org>; <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 9:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposed issue; Visibility of Web services
>
>
> >
> > 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 13:24:47 UTC