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

Re: XML protocol comparisons

From: Wesley M. Felter <wesf@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:09:31 -0600 (EST)
To: Justin Chapweske <justin@cyrus.net>
cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0003301902170.12590-100000@krait.cs.utexas.edu>
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Justin Chapweske wrote:

> I know that someone mentioned BXXP on here before, and I just have to
> ask what if any value does it provide over the webmux protocol that was
> specified for HTTP-NG?

That would be me, and I don't see any important difference between webmux
and BXXP; I was just mentioning it to solicit comments.

> There are so many juicy gems to be gathered from
> HTTP-NG, so even though it may not have happened as a whole, I still
> think the individual components are valid.

Eric already did an "upper layer" comparison chart; maybe now we need a
"lower layer" one with HTTP/1.1, HTTP-NG, BXXP, and whatever else is out
there.

I separate these layers, because I think the particular XML syntax of a
request or response is mostly orthogonal to the way these messages are
transported. I know that for some people sneaking through firewalls is the
highest concern and thus they're stuck with HTTP, but perhaps it would be
nice for the rest of us to possibly be able to get the higher performance
that comes from non-HTTP protocols.

Wesley Felter - wesf@cs.utexas.edu - http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/wesf/
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2000 20:09:38 GMT

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