- From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 16:27:38 +0100 (BST)
- To: Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>
- cc: moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Dick Brooks wrote: > >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? ftp, telnet and finger services run on different ports with different numbers, are clearly separate services with no interdependencies, and don't require ever-more-complex parser implementations to work correctly. Separate, compartmentalised functionality has its advantages. L. IP is the waist in the hourglass. no, HTTP is the waist in the hourglass. no, CCAMP is the waist in the hourglass. and time is still running out. > 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 <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2001 11:28:15 UTC