- From: Nick Nadgauda <nick@invertica.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:13:15 -0400
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: <www-ws@w3.org>
Nothing's wrong with HTTP. I don't think there's anything inherently limiting in the protocol that limits the running event-driven applications and services on top of it. I was making a slightly different point however. If you take a look at the world of synchronous web services, there is no need for custom endpoint adapters. A .NET client can theoretically talk to a Weblogic web service with no problem -- and more importantly with no adapters at either end. This is just the nature of standards. If both clients and servers conform to a spec, everything works together (for the most part). Now if you look at the async world, no such interoperability exists. I can't, without installing a set of adapters, do pub/sub between two different vendors' endpoints. My goal is to get rid of adapters. I want all publishers, messaging providers, and subscribers to speak a common format the way everything speaks HTTP. If I understand their products correctly, what KnowNow, Kenamea, and Bang Networks have basically done is build a tunnel over HTTP. They've defined a new closed "protocol" -- in this case the protocol being "use 2 HTTP connections, one to send and one to receive, and keep the receive one constantly open". This works great because they control both ends of the connection. Unless other vendors (publishers and subscribers alike) adopt this "protocol", you won't have true inter-vendor interoperability the way you will with synchronous web services. Kind of like I can't assume that everything speaks Tibco or Vitria. The way I see it, there are three ways for inter-vendor async interop to work out. 1. Everyone adopts a low level async protocol. This might be something like BEEP and it might take years for vendors to buy in, but it might work out. 2. KnowNow, Kenemea, & Bang agree to interoperate and standardize their technology. If other vendors go for it, this might be a good way to go. 3. Everything starts speaking something like JMS (and so far only the message bus providers do. The endpoints unless they're J2EE apps do not) and someone does JMS over KnowNow/Kenemea/Bang. --Nick -----Original Message----- From: www-ws-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Mark Baker Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 10:00 PM To: nick@invertica.com Cc: www-ws@w3.org Subject: Re: open transport protocol for aysnc web services? Nick Nadgauda wrote: > There's also a few open protocol possiblities (again that I know of) > including the Jabber as Middleware effort (jam.jabber.org) which aims to > provide a messaging transport over Jabber's XML on IM backbone. Anyone know > of any (other?) efforts going on in this area? What's wrong with HTTP? Have you seen what KnowNow is doing with it? It seems to be about what you're looking for. Check out; http://www.knownow.com http://developer.knownow.com MB
Received on Monday, 9 July 2001 10:14:17 UTC