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

RE: XML protocol comparison

From: Sami Khoury <sami@whatuwant.net>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:55:15 -0700
Message-ID: <F0CBA28A8CE1D311B64300508BC2162201BFBE@SARUMAN>
To: XML DistApp ML <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Eric said:

> I wonder if ICE is ever used for XML protocols outside of content
> syndication.

It is -- Andromedia (now merged with Macromedia, I believe) built a product
that used ICE internally to message between its various system-logging
components.

	Sami


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Prud'hommeaux [mailto:eric@w3.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 1:21 PM
To: Daniel Koger
Cc: Bernhard Dorninger; XML DistApp ML
Subject: Re: XML protocol comparison


On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 11:03:43AM -0700, Daniel Koger wrote:
> This is Daniel Koger from the ICE Authoring Group.  Does app-specific
imply
> association with a single given application, or a set of applications
> targeting a segment of exchange?

the latter. perhaps the new wording is clearer:

domain-specific XML protocols: protocols with a fixed grammer
targeting a particular application domain.

> Reason for the question:
> 
> We have had a perspective that ICE is associated with a single company.
My
> team uses ICE from two different vendors and some in-house prototyping
that
> is application independent.  All of the work is, however, targeting
> syndication applications for interchange between application frameworks.

I wonder if ICE is ever used for XML protocols outside of content
syndication. It can be, but then all messaging formats cam be. ICE has
a well thought out transaction scenario that provides reliable message
transport. This technology is interesting in the xml-protocol domain
and it may be interesting to adapt the ICE states and messages to work
over SOAP or LOTP.

> -----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 Wednesday, 10 May 2000 13:55:34 GMT

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