W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > July 2001

RE: Protocol Bindings

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:21:59 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F19253E@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Jean-Jacques,

I was recently referred to section 2.5 of the Beep Core spec. It's an
enviably concise and compact definition of what BEEP expects of a mapping to
a particular transport service.

Regards

Stuart
[1] http://beepcore.org/beepcore/rfc3080.jsp#transport.mapping

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: 11 July 2001 09:27
> To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> Cc: Williams Stuart; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Protocol Bindings
> 
> 
> So would a fair summary of your position be that we produce a 
> companion spec
> like:
>     Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP
>     http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3081.txt?number=3081
> 
> (but of course this would have another name, like "Mapping 
> SOAP onto HTTP")
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> 
> > [...] However, we all know
> > that SOAP and XML are not alone in the world - there are plenty of
> > existing protocols and infrastructure around. In order to allow SOAP
> > based applications to take advantage of such services and features, we
> > allow SOAP to be bound to various other protocols in as straightforward
> > a way as possible.
> >
> > This gives us what we want in that it allows SOAP applications to use a
> > variety of underlying protocols without us having to define a new
> > complex "binding language" that can support extensibility etc. [...]
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 08:22:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:02 GMT