- From: Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 08:56:20 -0500
- To: <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Cc: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@akamai.com>, <ietf@ietf.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>> I never said a message broker was SOAP specific. >a message broker that looks at a SOAPAction header isn't SOAP specific? SOAPAction is a HTTP header - message brokers are HTTP/MIME aware, including the ability to deal with HTTP/MIME extension headers, such as SOAPAction. A message broker is not required to understand the structure and semantics of a SOAP document. >what you are saying is that there are people out there who do not understand >the value of clean separation of function between layers. how is that a >justification for a standards-setting organization to propagate that >misunderstanding? Or perhaps there are people who don't understand message broker concepts. How is what I've described all that different from inetd? Consider: |ftp|telnet|finger| |ebXML|GISB|AIAGE5|AS2| | inetd | | message broker | | TCP | | HTTP | ........ ........... What's unclean about this approach, it enables centralized administration, single security domains, workflow management, a single "choke point" for security purposes. The "handlers" are in fact separate and distinct layers from the message broker. Dick
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2001 09:46:43 UTC