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

RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???

• To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <clbullar@i...>, "Mike Champion" <mc@x...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
• From: "David LeBlanc" <whisper@o...>
• Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:48:50 -0800
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306FEE934@HQ5>

Ok, let's not nail Box without reading the article (I did so).

The first problem I have is with his premise that HTTP is or should be
something more then a content publishing protocol. Isn't that what it set
out to be in the first place? It seems to me that what HTTP does these days
is a testament to how robust it is, given that it's now used for many things
not contemplated by it's original designers. It seems to me to be a typical
debaters ploy to insist that an elephant makes a lousy cow when the cow is
doing it's role just fine thank you very much!

Secondly, Box is described in this article as an evangalist for .net these
days. Seems to me that .net is a Microsoft-centric set of protocols meant to
embrace and extend the web in the usual way friendly of our illegal
monopoly. I can't overlook the fact that Box was the champion for the COM
(and DCOM?) and that that might suggest that MS wants yet another complex
and arcane standard biased in it's favor.

By all means, lets think outside the Box - and the .net, but let us not be
taken in by yet another Microsoft shell game!

Dave LeBlanc
Seattle, WA USA

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 9:35
> To: 'David LeBlanc'; Mike Champion; xml-dev@l...
> Subject: RE:  MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
>
>
> Let's not nail Box without reading the article first.
> Box makes points about long duration transactions,
> and the problems of two way pipes.   At the bottom,
> the article states:
>
> "And even though Microsoft is working on the problem too, Box did
> say that Microsoft is unlikely to succeed alone"
>
> "Microsoft has some ideas (on how to break the independence
> on HTTP), IBM has some ideas, and others have ideas. We'll see,"
> he said. But, he added, "if one vendor does it on their own, it will
> simply not be worth the trouble."
>
> len
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David LeBlanc [mailto:whisper@o...]
>
> Don Box - champion of COM. Is it any wonder that HTTP is no longer
> sufficient. Besides, it's not Microsoft proprietary.
>

• References:
  • RE: MS thinks HTTP Needs Replacing???
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: New Patent Policy Draft
• Next by Date: 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