Re: Protocol independance

Whoa. Just what protocols are these? And why is the web at all 
relevant in their light?

I guess it come down to this: people here and there take issue with 
the capabilities of the web from time to time along these lines - 
'it's not good for X, X is important, therefore the web needs to be 
improved for X', where X transactions/security/sessions/reliability 
and whatnot.

If these said protocols are optimal for a job, why is this group not 
called the protocol/abstract architecture group, and why is the web 
of any interest if we have such protocols?

I'm not being flippant; these are questions that customers ask me 
about web services. I have an intuition that it comes down to 
protocol gateways and uniformity, but I don't know that anyone's 
actually said that.

Bill de hÓra
--
Propylon
www.propylon.com


> +1
> 
> On Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 03:01  PM, Mike Champion wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:37:14 -0500, Mark Baker <mbaker@idokorro.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Suppose we had a tuple space based system, such as one based on Linda
>>> or JavaSpaces.  Would it still be the case that a Web services approach
>>> to using this system would be to tunnel "getStockQuote" messages through
>>> write() or take() or other tuple space operations?
>>
>>
>> I would think that a consumer could write() an object that was a 
>> representation of the Infoset defining a getStockQuote SOAP message, 
>> and then the service could take() the message, then write() an object 
>> representing the Infoset of the response.  You'd need a way of 
>> "serializing" the Infoset as a Javaspaces object (that's sortof a 
>> mind- bending concept) but I don't see why it couldn't be done.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm just trying to understand the motivation for this view.  Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Uhh, because there are a lot of protocols out there, many of which do 
>> the job they were designed to do better than HTTP can?
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 16:46:54 UTC