Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Sorry to distract people from the eternal and unanswerable questions of the meaning of meaning :~) but here's an InfoWorld article relevant to the generality of HTTP for web services: 'AS PART OF an overall push to fortify Web services, vendors are bolstering the reliability of messaging infrastructures with new tools to allow enterprises to build applications that ensure delivery of XML documents. Asynchronous communication is at the core of these efforts. This type of message delivery and transaction is becoming increasingly critical as businesses cannot count on constant network uptime and synchronous connectivity, experts said. "The next passage [of adoption] is asynchronous messaging," said Tim Hilgenberg, chief technology strategist at Lincolnshire, Ill.-based Hewitt Associates. "I don't think HTTP will satisfy that need for reliability [and transactions]."' http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/01/21/020121hnwebserve.xm l I guess my question is, "If HTTP is so general, why are vendors such as BEA, Tibco, Progress, etc. moving to other protocols to "ensure delivery of XML documents" via web services? It's easy to agree with Mark Baker (especially after browsing the REST Wiki) that in principle HTTP is a 99/1 solution for internet communications, so why is the world backing away from this in practice?
|
