My, that's pithy. 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. On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 07:19:04PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > seems like SOAP's first problem is layering on top of HTTP . > > once you make that choice, it's downhill from there. > -- Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)
- RE: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Bernard Aboba
- Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Jim Fleming
- Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Mark Nottingham
- Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Michael W. Condry
- Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Mark Nottingham
- Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Michael W. Condry
- RE: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Hilarie Orman
- Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Hilarie Orman
- RE: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Carr, Wayne
- Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Mark Nottingham
- Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Randy Bush
- Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Mark Nottingham
- RE: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Carr, Wayne
- Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Mark Nottingham
- RE: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Carr, Wayne
- RE: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP Glenn Waters