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

RE: Why XML for Messaging?

• To: 'Chiusano Joseph' <chiusano_joseph@b...>, Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:03:18 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Thanks.  I thought that was what you meant.  It 
isn't about the binary or FastInfoset; it is playing 
nice.  That's good too.

Where we thee or me have to be careful is making 
claims for the standards that lead to RFPs that 
can't be implemented.
 
As one or the original 'wall to wall' believers, 
I have to accept guilt for that too, but I also 
have to face up to the facts of performance.  
When we were mostly docWonks, this wasn't a 
problem but now that we have MOM and MOM's 
kitchen is on fire, it is and I do.  Goldfarb 
warned me about this years ago, and once again, 
the Doctor was right.

Benchmark the performance of web services down 
to the edges.  Asynchronicity is not an excuse 
for failing to get the mail on time.  What this 
means is as Derek and others suggest: we bid different 
formats at the edges and we may or may not use 
XML machinery for those.  As we get away from 
real time, we can convert, but even then, we 
ought to look at the lifecycle and inquire if 
this is useful.

len


From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@b...]

Here's the most recent of a series of announcements since the agreement

• Prev by Date: Re: Why XML for Messaging?
• Next by Date: schema-aware XML parser (java heap error)
• Previous by thread: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• Next by thread: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread