- From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 08:36:10 -0500 (EST)
- To: Jim Webber <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>
- cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> > I really believe this would be a mistake. I really want a > > world where the set of headers is NOT dependant on *how* the > > message is transmitted ( or how some future message will be > > transmitted ). This is the kind of architectural view that sounds absolutely wonderful, but it can get sub-optimal when actually enforced. For example, if we end up recreating all of HTTP as a set of SOAP headers, then we have duplicated the protocol stack, and we'll actually hurt adoption -- HTTP users wanting to send SOAP messages in a simple request/reply mode will not want to deal with ReplyTo, since an HTTP post guarantees a response comes back. Similarly, looking at WS-Management, there's lots of things being created (oh sorry, "leveraged") to re-create SNMP: SOAP over UDP, WS-Enumeration, Ws-Events (aka SOAP-Traps) and so on. Layering and abstractions are great, but so is "optimize the common case." After all, we want to end up like the IETF protocol suite, not the ISO one. /r$ -- Rich Salz Chief Security Architect DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html XML Security Overview http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
Received on Saturday, 13 November 2004 13:36:11 UTC