Title: RE: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP
I didn't realize there were any cynics that were on this list.
/gww
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 23:37
To: Mark Nottingham
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re
PROTECTED]; Lloyd Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]; John Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP
Web Services intermediaries will certainly exist and use SOAP; whether
they are exactly like the current OPES
SOAP intermediaries must be explicitly targetted by the message
(using the 'actor' attribute). In this respect, they are completely
unlike the OPES model.
Of course, other kinds of intermediaries (HTTP, etc.; they may even
be interposed with the SOAP intermediary) may make other decisions
about
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 11:12:56AM -0600, Hilarie Orman wrote:
The 'explicitly addressed' was added to explicitly address your
concerns that the IP addressing model might be violated.
parsing... parsing...
I don't *think* I've raised any such concerns... my primary concern
has been the
Nottingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 9:10 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Keith Moore; Tomlinson, Gary; Randy Bush; Lloyd Wood; John Martin;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP
SOAP intermediaries must be explicitly
seems like SOAP's first problem is layering on top of HTTP .
not a necessity, just blinders of that community, a limitation derived from
understanding only layer seven.
randy
(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
Apologies for the delay in responding. I believe that Mark's summary is
pretty accurate but I would add one clarification. SOAP encompasses much
broader scope that iCAP. SOAP is a whole architecture for messaging; iCAP
is a very simplified vectoring protocol.
iCAP is a way of getting an
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 08:41:06AM -0400, Lee Rafalow wrote:
I haven't taken a poll so I can't comment on how many of the icap
implementers are rethinking their implementations. When we polled
people
]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 08:41:06AM -0400, Lee Rafalow wrote:
I haven't taken a poll so I can't comment on how many of the icap
implementers are rethinking their implementations. When we polled
people
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 04:27PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Just to be clear, I don't like iCAP as a protocol (I have implemented an
earlier version) and I don't like SOAP as a protocol (even though the
only real implementation of SOAP is now an Apache project), but more
importantly the problem
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 08:41:06AM -0400, Lee Rafalow wrote:
I haven't taken a poll so I can't comment on how many of the icap
implementers are rethinking their implementations. When we polled people at
the last OPES workshop, there were only a few people who knew anything about
SOAP.
HI, All
Where can I find some materials or dicussion on ICAP and SOAP? I think
both of them address somewhat the content adapation problem in Internet.
Thanks.
Wanghong
In a nutshell:
ICAP is a means of encapsulating HTTP inside of HTTP, to allow
messages to be 'vectored' from an intermediary to an ICAP server for
processing, and then sent on their way. It also defines where those
messages may be vectored from the intermediary. I believe that its
primary
14 matches
Mail list logo
