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

Re: Draft Alternate Section 3.

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:39:39 +0200
Message-ID: <3ABF0E5A.B36D25BC@crf.canon.fr>
To: Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>
CC: "Williams Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Krishna Sankar wrote:

>         9.      "This operation may be implemented over HTTP, HTTPS, SSL/TCP, TCP and
> SMTP" : Why not RMI, COM+ et al ? The point is do we *need to*
> assume/specify any protocol/transport ? Of course, we would have the
> bindings and hopefully we could specify bindings to these as well.

Using RMI or COM+ as an underlying transport protocol (ie, to transport XMLP enveloppes
verbatim) seems a bit far-fetched (don't these protocols already include the machinery that
XMLP is about to define?). On the other hand, I can see why you would map XMLP enveloppes to
RMI/COM+ requests. But then, we are probably talking about "protocol conversion" rather than
about "protocol binding".

Received on Monday, 26 March 2001 04:40:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:12 UTC