------_=_NextPart_001_01BF3FBE.444A4A5E
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Has anyone looked at wddx ?
This is an "open" standard which does xml over http.
They have an sdk for both unix and windows machines. It's mostly for
datatransmission between 2 servers but i think it has potential.
the url : http://www.wddx.org
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Marc van Woerkom wrote:
>
> > > I agree that we should press on with our simple XML over
> HTTP solution
> > > rather than wait for an IETF standard to do RPC over the
> Internet.
> >
> > The SOAP i-d proposes a nice extension of the stuff we already do,
> > and going that step further, interpreting the data exchange
> as RPC is
> > quite elegant.
> >
> > What's the difference?
> > Instead of sending arguments to distinct URLs that encode
> the methods,
> > one states them explicitly in the HTTP message body.
> >
> > Plus you add an object, thus it makes adding different but related
> > services (think: mp3, DVD) easier.
> >
> > Can't see much room for evil here.
>
> Well, some points:
>
> - - The current draft draft-box-http-soap-01.txt is of category
> "Informational" which means it will never be any kind of internet
> standard. See RFC 1796 for more details on this topic.
>
> - - The draft makes use of the HTTP Extension Framework for
> the required
> M-POST command which itself is currently an expired draft.
>
> - - Finally, the current draft specifies soap.v1. IMHO this
> should have been
> something below 1 (e.g. soap.v0.9) before the protocol has been
> released as RFC. Else, implementation can't destinguish between
> pre-release implementation and implementations of the final version.
>
>
> IMHO, the draft is a nice way to do RFC (or even remote method calls
> like CORBA does) over HTTP, but it's too early to jump on
> this technology
> now. What we need is an API which can be immediately used
> right now. We
> can always switch to a better network transport protocol
> later. As long as
> the data model (and ID calculation) doesn't change, the
> transport protocol
> should (almost?) be transparent to the application developer.
>
> Cheers,
> Jochen
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (NetBSD)
> Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
>
> iD8DBQE4SmS/0fhX0Y/ocz0RAja1AJ48CBtXXzI5F60M7wteJ+4MF7vwTwCePk5U
> jUxXAFx1a6siBTI7jumXvt0=
> =LFfI
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF3FBE.444A4A5E
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
Has anyone looked at wddx ?
This is an "open" standard which does xml = over http.
They have an sdk for both unix and windows = machines. It's mostly for datatransmission between 2 servers but = i think it has potential.
the url : http://www.wddx.org
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Marc van Woerkom =
wrote:
>
> > > I agree that we should press on with =
our simple XML over
> HTTP solution
> > > rather than wait for an IETF standard =
to do RPC over the
> Internet.
> >
> > The SOAP i-d proposes a nice extension of =
the stuff we already do,
> > and going that step further, interpreting =
the data exchange
> as RPC is
> > quite elegant.
> >
> > What's the difference?
> > Instead of sending arguments to distinct =
URLs that encode
> the methods,
> > one states them explicitly in the HTTP =
message body.
> >
> > Plus you add an object, thus it makes =
adding different but related
> > services (think: mp3, DVD) easier.
> >
> > Can't see much room for evil here.
>
> Well, some points:
>
> - - The current draft =
draft-box-http-soap-01.txt is of category
> "Informational" which =
means it will never be any kind of internet
> standard. See RFC 1796 for more =
details on this topic.
>
> - - The draft makes use of the HTTP Extension =
Framework for
> the required
> M-POST command which itself is =
currently an expired draft.
>
> - - Finally, the current draft specifies =
soap.v1. IMHO this
> should have been
> something below 1 (e.g. soap.v0.9) =
before the protocol has been
> released as RFC. Else, =
implementation can't destinguish between
> pre-release implementation and =
implementations of the final version.
>
>
> IMHO, the draft is a nice way to do RFC (or =
even remote method calls
> like CORBA does) over HTTP, but it's too early =
to jump on
> this technology
> now. What we need is an API which can be =
immediately used
> right now. We
> can always switch to a better network transport =
protocol
> later. As long as
> the data model (and ID calculation) doesn't =
change, the
> transport protocol
> should (almost?) be transparent to the =
application developer.
>
> Cheers,
> Jochen
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (NetBSD)
> Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
>
> =
iD8DBQE4SmS/0fhX0Y/ocz0RAja1AJ48CBtXXzI5F60M7wteJ+4MF7vwTwCePk5U
> jUxXAFx1a6siBTI7jumXvt0=3D
> =3DLFfI
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>