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

Re: XTech 2000 XML protocol BOF notes

From: Wesley M. Felter <wesf@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:00:23 -0600 (EST)
To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0003231847390.25275-100000@hognose.cs.utexas.edu>
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:

> If we start modeling XML protocols as a series of layers
> [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/15-XML-protocol-Viewpoints.html#proposedRequirements],
> we can take a diverse set of requirements, categorize them, and parcel
> them out to smaller groups. This will allow greater parallel
> development and allow more rapid development of a core which would
> unify most of the functionality of XML-RPC [http://www.xmlrpc.com/]
> and SOAP [http://www.msdn.microsoft.com/xml/general/soapspec-v1.asp].
> I am now looking for a way to express the categories and inter-layer
> dependencies in a clear way. For example, from the picture in the
> Viewpoints document:
> Authentication (digital signatures)
>   stacks on: core
>    provides: some auth API
> Procedure Invocation
>   stacks on: core
>    provides: RPC

This sounds a lot like BXXP; has anybody looked at that? BXXP seems to
handle mux, async message-passing, and auth (via TLS and SASL) already. it
doesn't appear to specify message formats, so you could probably use
XML-RPC, SOAP, or LDO over BXXP pretty easily.


Wesley Felter - wesf@cs.utexas.edu - http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/wesf/
Received on Thursday, 23 March 2000 20:01:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:09 UTC