- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 21:18:57 -0400
- To: "Clemens F. Vasters" <clemensv@newtelligence.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Hi Clemens, On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 09:19:25AM +0200, Clemens F. Vasters wrote: > Pardon me for jumping in. Usually I am a "silent reader" here, but I have a problem with "protocol independence is a bug". > > (a) I just wrote yet another mail to a customer who needs to broadcast to multiple (thousands) of web service endpoints via UDP datagrams sent over a satellite feed. Cool. But UDP is not an application protocol. > (b) I know of an Asian stock exchange which employs a queueing network connecting autonomous computing agents for handling their trading system, for which any transport expect message queues would be inacceptable at present -- still the payload they carry are WS calls. Hard to tell if that includes application protocols or not. > (c) Last week I talked to a medical imaging company who is using plain TCP connections carrying DIME streams to send large sequences of image data tagged with metadata enclosed in SOAP envelopes. TCP is also not an application protocol. > All different protocols, all proper uses of web service technology (and one of them actually using WS-Addressing already) It doesn't sound like any of them use application protocols though. I agree that *transport* protocol neutrality is a Good Thing. But application protocol neutrality is a Very Bad Thing. Unlike transport protocols, application protocols include information which effects the application semantics of the message (which is why they're called application protocols, of course 8-). I suggest followups to www-ws@w3.org. MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Monday, 14 April 2003 06:52:25 UTC