Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7656RE: [soapbuilders] Re: Microsoft SOAP

Expand Messages
  • Dick Brooks
    May 5, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Andrew,

      >Microsoft believes that interoperability is improved by having
      >fewer, rather than more, protocols for achieving a function.

      Having lived through the interoperability woes of the SNA, DECnet, IPX,
      TCP/IP, Netbeui era, I believe the world is a better place today since
      TCP/IP seems to have "risen above" the proprietary protocols. IMO, we are at
      the threshold or another era, the B2B protocol era and history seems to be
      repeating itself.

      The number of incompatible choices (SOAP, ebXML, BEEP, HTTPR, RFC2388, etc.)
      is already "excessive", IMO. Now we have another incompatible option added
      to the list, DIME.
      If Microsoft were serious about reducing the number of protocols they would
      choose to support one of the existing options, rather than introducing a
      new, proprietary option.

      >For that reason, we should settle either on SwA or on DIME. There
      >are some significant technical advantages to DIME, particularly in
      >the efficiency of buffer allocation by readers and in the context
      >of transports other than HTTP. (These have been discussed in
      >other threads.) Based on these technical advantages, DIME is
      >preferable to SwA. And less is more.

      How does the introduction of DIME improve interoperability if it "adds"
      rather than reduces the number of protocols. There are already "several"
      protocol options available, one of which was designed on top of SwA (ebXML's
      Message Service), with Microsoft's assistance. Does Microsoft believe that
      none of these other offerings meet the criteria for "general-purpose and
      widely-applicable"?

      Dick Brooks
      Systrends, Inc
      7855 South River Parkway, Suite 111
      Tempe, Arizona 85284
      Web: www.systrends.com <http://www.systrends.com>
      Phone:480.756.6777,Mobile:205-790-1542,eFax:240-352-0714



      -----Original Message-----
      From: njudah [mailto:njudah@...]
      Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 9:51 AM
      To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [soapbuilders] Re: Microsoft SOAP

      Its a bit mystifying, isn't it? I don't understand what
      strategic
      benefit they'd gain from not supporting MIME, and clearly its a
      feature customers want. So why not support it? And why would they
      even join WS-I if they aren't interested in basic SwA interop?

      --- In soapbuilders@y..., Rich Salz <r.salz@v...> wrote:
      > > Last i heard there were no plans for the MSFT toolkits to
      include SwA
      > > support.
      >
      > Highly unfortunate. I hope MS toolkit customers pressure them to
      > continue on the interop trend, and not force us all to get on the
      DIME.
      > /r$



      -----------------------------------------------------------------
      This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
      implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




      -----------------------------------------------------------------
      This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
      implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic