Re: XMLCONF Proposal

[John Stracke <francis@thibault.org>]

On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 15:09, Phil Shafer wrote:
    Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
    >I heard folks wondering why not use an existing RPC layer, which is
    >different from adding another transport I would say.
    
    The original picture is a bit simplistic, since XMLCONF-over-BEEP
    (and XMLCONF-over-SOAP) uses the RPC mechanisms of the underlaying
    protocol.

Uh...BEEP isn't an RPC mechanism, is it? It's a MIME transport.

    The XMLCONF RPC mechanism is really a shim that can be easily placed
    on any RPC technology. It should allow future protocol mappings to
    any
    of the mentioned RPCs.

OK, so why is this useful? Why not just standardize on SOAP, which can
map to different transports already?

-- 
/================================================================\
|John Stracke        | http://www.thibault.org |HTML OK          |
|Francois Thibault   |===========================================|
|East Kingdom        |"Call me a Nervous Nellie, but I am        |
|francis@thibault.org|concerned about the sale of nuclear arms in|
|                    |my general neighborhood." -- Dave Barry    |
\================================================================/


--
to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>