[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???

• To: "'Thomas B. Passin'" <tpassin@c...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:58:17 -0600

Concept of Operations (CONOPS).  Interesting you 
should mention that.  That is exactly what we 
see for large network SOAP-enabled interagency 
applications.  Without it, there are too many 
surprises.  It still requires that long meeting(s) 
of name/node heads standing in a room arguming 
over a schema.  Once that is done, the CONOPS 
is easier.

It is helpful if there is a pre-existing network 
application that does moreorless what one needs. 
Then it is just a SOAP/XML enabling project.  That 
is tough enough given the "who bells the cat" problems, 
but a lot easier than starting from scratch if one 
can overcome "ownership of the problem" politics.

Otherwise, pick an edge system, pick a vendor, 
negotiate the schema, design the conops for a 
customer, and hope it "impresses" the rest 
of your industry enough that they would rather 
cooperate and co-opt than [expletive deleted] in your tag soup.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@c...]

This fits the RFC conops, the REST architecture, and yet is not message
queueing and is a lot simpler than message queueing.  Of course, for this to
work, both parties must be able to know what to expect and how to designate,
for example, the max allowable time.  These are a few of the "contract"
issues that Len has been emphasizing.

• Prev by Date: Re: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• Next by Date: Use of CONOPS in Sharable Service Contracts (WAS RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???)
• Previous by thread: Re: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• Next by thread: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread