Fair enough, I can accept that distinction and note the distinction in the future. I'm not sure what MQSeries is, I think it can be either transport or transfer, depending on whether the message embeds operations or not.
But I must admit, I've searched around a fair amount when you first brought up the distinction, and have never heard a clear distinction between transfer and transport other than in the terminological notes of IETF RFC's and your own blog entries advocating the distinction! I just don't think the terminological differences (while reasonable and useful) are broadly established in the IT industry, though perhaps I'm wrong. The terms have in practice been used interchangeably, in my experience.
Stu
----- Original Message ----
From: Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2006 11:21:37 AM
Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: MQSeries vs. ESB
On 5/8/06, Stuart Charlton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me correct myself and say "transfer" protocol instead of transport. Utimately, they're a way of moving bits with various differences in reliability, performance, available message exchange patterns, schemes to describe resources.
That's not the case, Stu. Transport protocols move bits, transfer
protocols don't. Transfer protocols are used atop transport protocols
for this reason.
Try looking at it this way; a trans*fer* protocol is to a trans*port*
protocol, as a supplier agreement is to a delivery truck. That is,
transport only gets the goods to the door, while the
agreement/contract gets them *in* the door.
Mark.
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
But I must admit, I've searched around a fair amount when you first brought up the distinction, and have never heard a clear distinction between transfer and transport other than in the terminological notes of IETF RFC's and your own blog entries advocating the distinction! I just don't think the terminological differences (while reasonable and useful) are broadly established in the IT industry, though perhaps I'm wrong. The terms have in practice been used interchangeably, in my experience.
Stu
----- Original Message ----
From: Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2006 11:21:37 AM
Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: MQSeries vs. ESB
On 5/8/06, Stuart Charlton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me correct myself and say "transfer" protocol instead of transport. Utimately, they're a way of moving bits with various differences in reliability, performance, available message exchange patterns, schemes to describe resources.
That's not the case, Stu. Transport protocols move bits, transfer
protocols don't. Transfer protocols are used atop transport protocols
for this reason.
Try looking at it this way; a trans*fer* protocol is to a trans*port*
protocol, as a supplier agreement is to a delivery truck. That is,
transport only gets the goods to the door, while the
agreement/contract gets them *in* the door.
Mark.
SPONSORED LINKS
| Computer software | Computer aided design software | Computer job |
| Soa | Service-oriented architecture |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
