RE: Visibility (was Re: Introducing the Service Oriented Architec tural style, and it's constraints and properties.

"Champion, Mike" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch
Message-ID <[email protected]>
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 10:25 PM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: [email protected]
> 

> As Dave points out, and I did before him, it's the methods 
> that matter the most for the purposes of visibility, not the headers.

And as I've argued on several occasions, that's the 1997-vintage model of
firewalls, not necessarily the 2003 or 2010 model of firewalls.  A number of
people who appear to be knowledgeable about firewalls have "+1"-ed my
arguments, and I haven't seen anyone but yourself push back on them.  You
may wish to elaborate.

> 
> > So again, I agree that "visibility" is an important 
> property, but what 
> > powers it is *standards*, not just HTTP.
> 
> So where are the standard Web service APIs?

Huh? APIs??? FWIW, I was thinking of standards for the format of a message
such as XML (duh), Xpath (to let an intermediary inspect an arbitrary
section of a message, be it in a SOAP header, the SOAP body, or the
payload), specific SOAP header/processing [proto]-standards such as
WS-Security, WS-Routing, XACML, etc. and content specs such as XBRL, UBL,
various bits of ebXML, and so on.  

Any standards that you can use to explain to a stupid machine what to look
for in a message and how to use its value in a routing/filtering/cacheing
decision enhance "visibility" IMHO.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.