W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2000

RE: Announcement: WWW9 Panel on XML and Protocols, 17 May 2000

From: David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:26:15 -0700
Message-ID: <80CB4C7E7DE1D311950600508BA5831F5C6DF6@neptune.commerceone.com>
To: "'Eric Prud'hommeaux'" <eric@w3.org>, Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, Janet Daly <janet@w3.org>
Eric

I've had a quick look at your architecture document (LOTP) and understand
why you want to model it on SOAP. However there is a whole class of problems
that *need* to be addressed for successful B2B that SOAP in it's current
form does not address. I posted an email to the SOAP list on this which said
...

<snip>
What it [SOAP] doesn't do, includes (this isn't a complete list):
*    reliable messaging - you need to know your information got through once
and only once
*    one-way messaging - you fire a message and then forget it
*    publish and subscribe
*    asynchronous and synchronous exchanges over HTTP, SMTP or other
transports
*    support for multi-Gb messages (yes Gb not Mb)
*    support for multiple payloads that aren't XML
*    security, so that you know the request has not been tampered with, is
authorized and should be acted on
</snip>

This resulted in extensive discussion on SOAP(RPC) vs Messaging that
concluded that what you really needed was SOAP **AND** messaging.

How do you think support for these requirements fits in with your plans for
LOTP. Currently they are all being addressed by ebXML Transport Routing and
Packaging Working Group and I want to find a way to avoid re-inventing the
wheel.

Thoughts.

David


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Prud'hommeaux [mailto:eric@w3.org]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 4:28 PM
To: Ken MacLeod
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org; Janet Daly
Subject: Re: Announcement: WWW9 Panel on XML and Protocols, 17 May 2000


On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 12:52:36PM -0500, Ken MacLeod wrote:
> Six weeks ought to be enough time to finalize Eric Prud'hommeaux's
> "facets", come up with a glossary of terms and draft definitions, and
> a bibliography.

I've started writing up the LOTP toy I've been playing with (discussed
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Mar/0041.html]). You
can take a peek at the architecture description
[http://www.w3.org/2000/03/31-LOTP-Architecture] to get an idea what
plan I'm on. I'll drop it into the matrix after a couple days of
serious brain dump. In the mean time, feel free to support/dispute the
design. I'll put quotes and refs in the discussion document
[http://www.w3.org/2000/03/31-LOTP-Discussion].

> Someone needs to volunteer (or needs to be volunteered ;-) to handle
> this and be able to spend many hours on it.  I would volunteer, but I
> don't have enough hours outside of work to apply to it.  I can't tell
> how much time Eric has, or if it's part of his assigned work with W3,
> but he's definitely been leading the way so far.

Do to its importance, it appears to have turned into my day job. I
have a small forest of reading to do to furthur my sense of all the
issues and participants.

-- 
-eric

(eric@w3.org)
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2000 16:27:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:56 GMT