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

RE: XML protocol comparison

From: Sami Khoury <sami@whatuwant.net>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 13:36:19 -0700
Message-ID: <F0CBA28A8CE1D311B64300508BC2162201BFA4@SARUMAN>
To: XML DistApp ML <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Eric said: "The defined ICE grammer is used only for the transport protocol,
and not for defining what is in the payload."

Right -- that's why I would have classified ICE as generic.  I suspect that
by "generic" you meant, "provides a mechanism to represent arbitrary data",
where ICE simply allows an application to transport and negotiate over
arbitrary data.  However, I don't know of an protocol that provides an
invertible transform mechanism for arbitrary data (for example, nothing in
XML-RPC mandates that a GIF be sent as base64 or by reference, if it is to
occur as a method parameter).

	Sami


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Prud'hommeaux [mailto:eric@w3.org]
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 1:29 PM
To: Sami Khoury
Cc: XML DistApp ML
Subject: Re: XML protocol comparison


On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 12:46:40PM -0700, Sami Khoury wrote:
> Hm, how are "generic" and "app-specific" being defined?  I ask because ICE
> isn't app-specific in any vertical industry sense, nor in any programmatic
> sense.

I suspected my terms weren't the greatest choice, but wanted to get it
out for discussion quickly. Perhaps I should just sequester those that
have "non custom serialization". The defined ICE grammer is used only
for the transport protocol, and not for defining what is in the
payload.

WfXML is now in the generic group.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Prud'hommeaux [mailto:eric@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 10:20 AM
> To: Bernhard Dorninger
> Cc: XML DistApp ML
> Subject: Re: XML protocol comparison
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 05, 2000 at 05:13:06PM +0200, Bernhard Dorninger wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > The more I read specs and related material of the "protocols" listed in
> > Eric's matrix, th more I feel, that heavyweights like BizTalk, eCo,
ebXML
> > should not be mentioned in one go with protocols like XMLRPC, SOAP or
> WDDX.
> > The former are far more than just protocols, they provide an integrative
> > infrastructure for E-commerce. So IMO BizTalk and Co. should not
directly
> be
> > compared to XMLRPC and Co.,  I think the two "groups of protocols" have
> been
> > designed with completely different intentions.
> 
> I was thinking the same thi
> 
> Yes, the list seems to benifit from grouping of similar protocols (see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Apr/0058.html). I
> meant to propse furthur grouping, but apparently failed.
> 
> I just made a quick pass at this (see
> http://slow1.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix). Summary:
> 
> generic:
>   XML-RPC
>   SOAP
>   WDDX
>   XMI
>   jabber
>   ebXML
>   BizTalk
>   BXXP
>   LOTP
> 
> app-specific:
>   ICE
>   IOPT
>   WfXML
>   eCo
>   XMOP
>   
> non-XML:
>   TIP
>   XDR
>   HTTP-NG
>   template
>   
> I haven't read all of these specs so some of these may be in the wrong
> place. Pleast post corrections to the list.
> 
> -- 
> -eric
> 
> (eric@w3.org)

-- 
-eric

(eric@w3.org)
Received on Monday, 8 May 2000 16:36:32 GMT

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