> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: lundi 15 mai 2006 21:30
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] transfer vs.
> transport protocols
>
>
> On 5/13/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'll admit, I'm one of those who cannot explain the diff if
> my 10 year
> > son were to ask me :).
> >
> > Can one of the more enlightened please give concise definitions and
> > explain the difference please? Please do not point me to the HTTP
> > spec; that does not help. Nor to Roy's thesis ;-).
>
> They're two different protocols of the stack that play
> entirely different, non-overlapping roles. Transport is for
> moving bits around the network. Transfer is for exchanging
> data between applications. Transfer uses transport.
>
> In OSI-speak (since somebody brought it up) IIOP, SOAP (as
> commonly used), etc.. are layer 5/6 protocols, while transfer
> protocols are layer 7. That's why I've always got a chuckle
> about those try to put SOAP over HTTP 8-)
> Mark.
Not that it matters a lot, but I don't see what IIOP and SOAP have to do
with OSI layers 5 (session) and 6 (presentation).
The core component of OSI layer 6 was ASN.1, more or less the OSI
equivalent of XML.
BTW, ASN.1 had two levels: "abstract syntax" and "transfer syntax" (BER,
PER, etc.)... Since the latter is about the way bits are moved around,
according to your definition it should rather have been called
"transport syntax"...
I'll stop it here!
Harm Smit.
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.
