- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:39:39 +0200
- To: Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>
- CC: "Williams Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Krishna Sankar wrote: > 9. "This operation may be implemented over HTTP, HTTPS, SSL/TCP, TCP and > SMTP" : Why not RMI, COM+ et al ? The point is do we *need to* > assume/specify any protocol/transport ? Of course, we would have the > bindings and hopefully we could specify bindings to these as well. Using RMI or COM+ as an underlying transport protocol (ie, to transport XMLP enveloppes verbatim) seems a bit far-fetched (don't these protocols already include the machinery that XMLP is about to define?). On the other hand, I can see why you would map XMLP enveloppes to RMI/COM+ requests. But then, we are probably talking about "protocol conversion" rather than about "protocol binding". Jean-Jacques.
Received on Monday, 26 March 2001 04:40:16 UTC