RE: HTTP-ng status

From: Didier PH Martin (martind@netfolder.com)
Date: Wed, Oct 06 1999


From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@netfolder.com>
To: "Mike Spreitzer" <spreitze@parc.xerox.com>, "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, <ietf-http-ng@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:19:18 -0400
Message-ID: <NBBBJPGDLPIHJGEHAKBAEELHEDAA.martind@netfolder.com>
Subject: RE: HTTP-ng status

Hi Mike,

So what is happening now with the chair work?

From an otehr perspective, being an ILU user myself, I found several things
from usage.

a) the HTTP protocol used for remote object invocation is great. It is
firewall friendly.
b) If the marshaled stuff would be in XML this would be even greater. There
is actually a draft on the table coming from the DCOM ecosystem and is named
SOAP. It is based on XML, we may have here some opportunity to have object
middlewares to communicate each other.
c) to tread a document as an object is great and it resolves the impedance
mismatch between procedural languages and the exchange format (for instance
XML),
d) There is also an opportunity to see an HTTP server as an other kind of
object if the marshaling is based on XML. Actually, WEbDav is using XML to
encode request and responses.

So, if HTTP-NG would use XML as a marshalling tool, we would have the
occasion to:
- merge potentially several world like Webdav, the usual HTTP and object
middleware.
- resolve the biggest problem experimented with the usage of XML is the
impedance mismatch between this format and procedural languages.

Cheers
Didier PH Martin
mailto:martind@netfolder.com
http://www.netfolder.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-http-ng-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-ng-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Mike Spreitzer
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 1:37 PM
To: 'Simon St.Laurent'; ietf-http-ng@w3.org
Subject: RE: HTTP-ng status


I've been discouraged by the degree to which the response has been mixed
thus far.  Although encouraged by seeing the occasional resonance in
various fora, I myself have decided to reduce my involvement to (1)
publishing what we've done and (2) focusing on the research problems
revealed by what we've done.  I myself am happy to see the list left
open for any discussion that should happen to ensue.

Speaking only for myself,
Mike Spreitzer (spreitze@parc.xerox.com)
http://www.parc.xerox.com/spreitze (Xerox external)
http://parcweb.parc.xerox.com/spreitze (Xerox internal)
+1-650-812-4833