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

RE: SOAP/XML Protocol and filtering, etc.

From: Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 08:56:20 -0500
To: <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Cc: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@akamai.com>, <ietf@ietf.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NEBBKFNNMLADLFMLGJCNGEHHCFAA.dick@8760.com>
>> I never said a message broker was SOAP specific.

>a message broker that looks at a SOAPAction header isn't SOAP specific?

SOAPAction is a HTTP header - message brokers are HTTP/MIME aware, including
the
ability to deal with HTTP/MIME extension headers, such as SOAPAction. A
message broker is not required to understand the structure and semantics of
a SOAP document.

>what you are saying is that there are people out there who do not
understand
>the value of clean separation of function between layers.  how is that a
>justification for a standards-setting organization to propagate that
>misunderstanding?

Or perhaps there are people who don't understand message broker concepts.

How is what I've described all that different from inetd? Consider:

|ftp|telnet|finger|    |ebXML|GISB|AIAGE5|AS2|
|      inetd      |    |   message broker    |
|       TCP       |    |       HTTP          |
   ........                 ...........

What's unclean about this approach, it enables centralized administration,
single security domains, workflow management, a single "choke point" for
security purposes. The "handlers" are in fact separate and distinct layers
from the message broker.

Dick
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2001 09:46:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT