- From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 14:14:58 -0400
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "Www-Ws@W3. Org" <www-ws@w3.org>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
A generic GTTP intermediary has little if any visibility into an HTTP POST request if the contents of the HTTP message contain binary data. A SOAP intermediary has significantly better visibility into an HTTP POST request is the contents of the HTTP message contain a SOAP message. 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 2:11 PM Subject: Re: Proposed issue; Visibility of Web services > 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 14:15:08 UTC