<snip> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:03:07 -0800 (PST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While I absolutely acknowledge the cleverness of this solution, it's not one > I would personally employ. Making a server application dependent on another > server for startup configuration strikes me as quite a hack (albeit a clever > one!) </snip>
There is no need to make the dependency. You can give your clients a choice: configure or not. However, if there is no choice, then this is the way to go, I think. As Eddie suggested, I think, what you need depends on your business. I have security situations where I require that this is done for all Internet calls. This not only requires that the host get the IP address from the external server but that the IP address is regularly or irregularly but frequently switched and that the client must access the external server too in order to reach the host at whateer the present IP address happens to be with a token from the external server that certifies that the client has done this. This may sound bizarre, but there are all sorts of requirements out there. I am sure that each of us has our own stories of the peculiarities of our own actual business. <snip> > Careful! Here at work we are using Web Services quite a bit, but so far, > very few of them go outside our network. We expose a lot of shared > components and systems as services, but they are only available to other > internal applications. > > I don't think that changes your basic premise though... Chances are, if you > are using this two-server initialization scheme, your clearly going to make > sure they can talk to each other, regardless of network topology. </snip> Yes! I think this is what Eddie was thinking too, but in the present context that is not what we were talking about, or there would not be all this worry about URLs, etc., I assume. If the problem were internal to an intranet, none of this discussion would make much sense. There is a firewall issue to the outside (Internet) too, but that is the port issue, which was covered, revisited. I personally would not think of intranet services as "Web" services, but I guess that is not really a bad way to speak. As long as we understand each other, this would not matter. I think there is a chance of confusion, however, if we think of intranets as the "Web". That is not much of a "Web". While I don't depend too much on dictionary itemizations of usages (NOT "definitions, PLEASE -- linguistics is not biology) in volatile areas of speech, the following is the way I talk and is from Meriam-Webster online (www.m-w.com): <snip> Main Entry: World Wide Web Function: noun : a part of the Internet designed to allow easier navigation of the network through the use of graphical user interfaces and hypertext links between different addresses -- called also Web </snip> Anyway, Frank, I do see your point and I think that it is great Martin got his answer from Kishore and AXIS. Since he is doing SOAP, that is the place to get it alright. Jack -- ------------------------------ "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~ "You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep." ~Native Proverb~ "Each man is good in His sight. It is not necessary for eagles to be crows." ~Hunkesni (Sitting Bull), Hunkpapa Sioux~ ----------------------------------------------- "This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation." --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
