- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:07:03 -0500
- To: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Hi Anne, On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:09:50PM -0500, Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > WSA is protocol independent. > > I'd like to be able to support identical reliability metrics regardless of > the underlying transfer protocol. And I'd like to be the King of Spain! 8-) There are two different ways to use SOAP (architecturally), and each has its own way to be protocol independant. I agree that protocol independance has its advantages, but in a very different way than you mean, I think. I'm sure we don't need to get into this now, but I've written a little about it in the past. See; http://www.markbaker.ca/blog/2002/10/30#2002-10-soap-definition http://www.markbaker.ca/2001/07/SoapUses/ So the impact to reliability is, sure, some aspects of reliability can be done in a protocol independant manner; message identity, specifying an expected reliability QoS with a mandatory extension, maybe some other things that aren't occuring to me right now. But the methods of the application protocol matter too, and can help with reliability in many situations. For example, if you did an HTTP PUT, but the connection died before you heard back, you could invoke GET to find out if your message got there or not. You can't do that with SMTP. Like I say, different application protocols have different coordination semantics, and simply do things differently. But many can be *extended* in the same way, which is what SOAP is really good at. Hmm, I'm sending a lot of messages again. Am I helping? MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 15:03:32 UTC