- From: Larry Cable <larry.cable@sfbay.sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 14:33:35 -0800
- To: Satish Thatte <satisht@microsoft.com>
- CC: "'David E. Cleary'" <davec@progress.com>, Michael Champion <mchamp@mediaone.net>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3A30103E.FDC7DF0B@sfbay.sun.com>
Satish Thatte wrote: > David, > > You are absolutely right. BizTalk Framework started with the same general > requirements as ebXML/TRP including > > 1. Transport independence > 2. Ability to carry arbitrary content > 3. Reliable delivery > 4. Message level security > > Although early versions of BizTalk Framework were designed from scratch > without reference to SOAP, in the 2.0 version we were able to rebase the > framework completely to build on SOAP. In so far as XP plans to provide an > extensible protocol framework in the SOAP tradition, there is absolutely no > reason why we cannot use XP to build a protocol that fulfills the set of > requirements ebXML's transport/routing/packaging work is based on. I tend to agree with this. > > > I don't think it is meaningful to talk in terms of "mission critical" vs > "non mission critical". What is mission critical obviously depends on the > mission. I can think of many missions for which a lightweight XML-based > protocol would be required and built on top of XP and ebXML/TRP would be > altogether a failure in that "mission critical" role. The point is that XP > enables a much wider class of mission critical protocols, whereas ebXML > focuses on a more specific B2B mission reflected in its specific > requirements. h'mmmm now I disagree with this, what aspect of ebXML (as it is current (un)specified) precludes it from solving any of the problem spaces that XP (as it is currently (un)specified). I frankly see little difference in either the specs or capabilities of either of these protocols! Rgds - larry > > > Satish > > -----Original Message----- > From: David E. Cleary [mailto:davec@progress.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 8:02 AM > To: Michael Champion; xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: RE: SOAP and ebXML > > > I'm wondering if participants here agree with the notion that SOAP is for > > simple services and ebXML for mission critical transactions. If so, what > > about ebXML makes it more suitable for mission critical work? > > (Transaction > > processing support, maybe?) > > I agree with the notion that ebXML is not appropriate for every uses case, > and that SOAP is a better choice for many applications. What I do not agree > with is that SOAP can not be the base upon which something such as ebXML > could be built. A perfect example of this is BizTalk. It has the same > requirements as ebXML, but is built on top of SOAP. > > So, in conclusion, my point is that XP can be used for mission critical work > if you build the required services on top of it. > > David Cleary > Progress Software
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2000 17:34:21 UTC