- From: Peter Furniss <peter.furniss@choreology.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:34:53 -0000
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Mark Baker sent: > > and I'm sure we could drum up an equally endless religous > argument about why IIOP is superior to HTTP and should have been > adopted, as was once proposed, as an Internet standard. Then we > wouldn't have all these issues with HTTP...) > > Again, that's a common mistake of CORBA folk, and Web services folk; you > can't compare IIOP and HTTP. IIOP is layer 6, HTTP is layer 7. They Doesn't HTTP cover both layer 6 and layer 7 - and it's the layer 6 features that seemed initially desirable to "Web Services folk" - who then ignore(d) HTTP's layer 7 elements, treating it as just a typed-document exchange protocol. (I've spent entirely too much time on OSI-related architectural discussion to want to go far down this path. And I especially don't want to think about whether HTTP has layer 5 features. Oh *!, I just have.) Peter
Received on Monday, 6 January 2003 17:41:27 UTC