- From: Sandeep Kumar <sandkuma@cisco.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:50:09 -0800
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Mark, Could you elaborate as to why you would be against HTTPR? Thanks, Sandeep -----Original Message----- From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Mark Baker Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 10:52 AM To: David Orchard Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: Re: "Reliable" web services for Next Big Thing? (was RE: Agenda for 5 December WSA telcon) On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:41:23AM -0800, David Orchard wrote: > I think that a simple acknowledgement protocol in soap headers would be very > useful and hit an 80/20 point. We've consistently heard from customers and > partners that reliable messaging is very important to them. I support the > discussion and architectural description of reliable messaging in this > forum. I agree that would be useful, but I think it's a long way from an 80/20 solution. > And saying that reliable messaging protocols don't make sense is akin to > saying that we don't need tcp as ip already exists. Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm for "reliable messaging protocols" if they're application layer extensions. I'm (generally) against them if they're transport protocols (like HTTPR). MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 13:50:57 UTC