Re: Visibility (was Re: Introducing the Service Oriented Architec tural style, and it's constraints and properties.
Mark Baker <[email protected]> Fri, 28 Feb 2003 02:09:15 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:36:41PM -0800, David Orchard wrote: > And now I'll answer the first paragraph. Visibility is a degree of > visibility, not an absolute yes/no. Of course. > Firewalls will look at many things in > messages, like ip addresses, http methods, URIs, port #s, etc. Sure. > Even if the method name goes in the SOAP envelope, it's still visible to the > intermediary. No, it isn't. It isn't enough that the string "FOO" can be run through some parser, because anything can be run through a parser. The issue is, does the app have prior knowledge of that what that string means? > It may be harder than if the method wasn't. I think you are > purposefully avoiding the simplicity argument that goes along with multiple > protocols. There is a trade-off in properties at play. Roughly it's > simplicity vs visibility and performance. I'm not saying that other properties weren't improved upon - perhaps they were, in spades, I don't know. I'm just asking about visibility; is there less visibility with the SOA style than with the REST style? You're not going to answer that, are you? 8-/ MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis