RE: Visibility (was Re: Introducing the Service Oriented Architec tural style, and it's constraints and properties.
"Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <[email protected]> Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:36:40 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01624B00@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net> |
IMHO he has indeed answered you, he just hasn't agreed with you. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Baker [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 1:09 AM To: David Orchard Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Visibility (was Re: Introducing the Service Oriented Architec tural style, and it's constraints and properties. 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