W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2003

RE: Dynamic invocation vs. late/dynamic binding

From: Edwin Khodabakchian <edwink@collaxa.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 20:44:34 -0800
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004501c2b6d0$a46cc600$690aa8c0@collaxa.net>

> For example, IMAP, and whatever it's architectural style is 
> called. 8-) It defines a network interface to mail servers.  
> It's the only abstraction that an IMAP client needs to deal 
> with in order to interact with a variety of third party mail 
> servers who have exposed their server's functionality and 
> data via the IMAP protocol.


Can't we imagine, Web Services being an architecture allowing people to
build protocols such as IMAP, LDAP, etc..at lower costs?

Cost being:
- cost of "deploying" support for the protocol across the nodes
  of the network.
- cost for modelling and advertising data exchanged back and forth
- cost for the developer to learn how to integrate that protocol
  into its application/environment.

Is there something fundamentally bad with allowing *some* services such
as a credit card processor to have their own protocol?

Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2003 23:44:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:02 UTC