- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 08:38:19 -0700
- To: <eamon.otuathail@clipcode.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Actually I think it is instructive to see that so many people have figured out how to make bindings to all kinds of underlying protocols including SMTP, FTP, TCP, IPC, HTTP, MIME multipart, BEEP, SIP, etc. etc. I have no doubt that these people have exceptionally good intuition but the numbers seem to indicate that the task is fairly simple and straightforward. Why do you say that the binding can mean anything? TCP and the TCP binding does not define an application and I don't understand how you can say that claiming that it is in order to make it fit within the diagram is architecturally clean. Take a look at how SOAP-RP [1] binds to TCP through DIME [2] for example. There you have a TCP binding which doesn't define any application what so ever - it merely talks about how to stick SOAP messages into DIME and onto TCP. >The problem with the current situation is that "binding" can >mean anything - and this gives rise to the 'super'-binding for >TCP which actually defines a mini-application protocol just >for SOAP inside the binding. I think we should acknowledge >that this exists, give it a name (one may be chosen that does >not offend anyone - 'custom', 'dedicated', 'SOAP-specific', >etc.), and when examining the options for carrying SOAP >envelopes we can compare "BEEP over TCP" vs. "Custom over TCP" > vs. "HTTP over TCP" and we get clean layering. Henrik [1] http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/xml_wsspecs/soap-rp/default.html [2] http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/xml_wsspecs/dime/default.htm
Received on Friday, 6 July 2001 11:40:41 UTC