- From: Scott Lawrence <slawrence@virata.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 11:18:39 -0400
- To: Dick Brooks <dick@8760.COM>
- CC: moore@cs.utk.edu, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>, ietf@ietf.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Dick Brooks wrote: > 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. Inetd uses only the port number - the address provided by the TCP and UDP layers below it - to make its decision. What is not clear (to me at least) is why the URI isn't enough to make the decision - that is the address of the resource above the HTTP layer. I don't see why administering and managing SOAPAction headers and Content-Types and whatever else is easier than adminstering URIs. -- Scott Lawrence Architect slawrence@virata.com Virata Embedded Web Technology http://www.emweb.com/
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2001 11:18:48 UTC