[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> (trimming back the cc: list for sanity)
>
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:26:01 PDT, Mark Nottingham said:
> > Many involved in the development of SOAP acknowledge the limitations
> > of using HTTP. However, SOAP is being designed to allow multiple
> > bindings underneath, not just HTTP; HTTP is only the chartered
> > transport for the 'core' WG. Most anticipate that HTTP will only be
> > used for relatively simple applications, while more business critical
> > uses will be transported across things like BEEP or DIME-over-TCP.
>
> The cynics and realists among us read this as:
>
> "SOAP over HTTP is the only chartered transport, so an RFC will be
> produced for that, complete with all the HTTP-implied warts. This
> will be implemented by several large software companies and become
> the de facto standard. A few people will create non-interoperable
> versions of BEEP or DIME encapsulation, but these will die off
> because they're not standard, and too many big software houses will
> botch SOAP-over-HTTP because they can't get HTTP right to have even
> a snowball's chance in Beelzebub's backyard for them to ever dream
> of doing a BEEP or DIME versions".
I hope you will be wrong.
FYI, there is a draft for SOAP over BEEP already:
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-etal-beep-soap-03.txt
__________________________________________
Alexey Melnikov
R & D, ACI Worldwide (formerly MessagingDirect Ltd.)
phone 780.424.4922 x357
I speak for myself only, not for my employer.
__________________________________________
