Re: Summing up on visibility(?)

Arkin,

> > Actually, I didn't think of asking them to do anything.  I was just
> > prying at some stuff that looked to me like popular fallacy, in the hope
> > that if distinct points were put to rest, different conclusions might
> > emerge.  I think I showed how a legacy service with no idempotent
> > operations can be wrapped in an idempotent interface [1].  This was
> > counter to a claim that the only way to get to idempotence was to
> > burden the client with sequence numbers.  No one has answered my
> > claim or provided a harder case.  This was supposed to be a reason
> > why RM was necessary.  I'm just wondering if that opinion moved
> > even slightly in response to my post.
>
> Can you repeat the explanation?

It's at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Jan/0326.html.

/Walden