RE: Summing up on visibility(?) (really, I mean it this time 8-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 10:05 PM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Summing up on visibility(?) (really, I mean it this time
> 8-)
> 

>I know we disagree about how visibility is enabled, but it sounds like
>we agree that it's a desirable thing for Web services.

Yes.  At least if we are talking about the same thing, i.e. a process that
doesn't know anything about the details of an application being able to
provide value added services such as security and cacheing.


>  Where would you suggest putting it?

In an "Architectural properties" section.  I'm not sure where that
section would best fit though. 8-/

> Can you live with
> something like my summary above of the value of "visibility" and how
> XML-based technologies complement the HTTP-based technologies? [I didn't
> think so :-) ] 

> Heh. 8-)  Yah, your characterization of the position of "REST advocates"
> reflects my position pretty closely.  XML does improve visibility ever
> so slightly, but I'd give it 1 "visibility point" out of 100, and SOAP
> maybe 3.  I'd give the uniform interface 80 points.

Coming to Web services as I do from being an XML geek, you will forgive me
for seeing the percentages reversed here. But I do think I see the value of
this in the WS arch document, along with explanations of how one can use the
"visibility' of the HTTP headers to add value to the interaction and how one
can use SOAP and XML to add value to the interaction.  We can agree to
disagree on the relative importance, IMHO.