- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 14:11:28 -0400
- To: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
- Cc: www-ws@w3.org, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:41:16PM -0400, Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > Mark Baker said: > > A generic processing model is not a generic application. > > Maybe not, but that's not the point of this discussion. The point is > visibility. ... and the role of a generic application in improving visibility. > A SOAP intermediary has excellent visibility into SOAP messages. I don't believe so. One more time, from the top ... 8-) A generic HTTP intermediary has better visibility into an HTTP transaction than a generic SOAP intermediary has into a SOAP transaction, because generic HTTP intermediaries are hardcoded to understand HTTP application methods, while generic SOAP intermediaries aren't hardcoded to know about any application methods. Even if you believe that HTTP is just for humans and browsers, this should be self-evident, I believe. But I understand, first hand, that it takes some reworking of mental models to grok. 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 14:08:18 UTC