[Standards-JIG] pubsub access models
chris.mullins at coversant.net
Thu Jan 5 01:04:48 UTC 2006
> On 12/29/05, Chris Mullins <chris.mullins at coversant.net> wrote:
>> [Refactoring PubSub]
>> While you're in there, you might want to take a quick read through:
>> This is a Web Service spec for pubsub - it's not a rich as JEP 60, but
>> it has some nice simplifications that streamline it quite nicely.
> We're in deep trouble if anything starting with WS- is perceived as
> simple and streamlined compared to the XMPP offering.
Hah. There is that. (We need WS-FileTranser. No Wait, now it's Dime. Damn, now it WS-Attachment. Oh wait. They changed it again. And Again.)
> Have you clicked through to read all the relevant specs (and their
> dependencies on SOAP, SOAP-Envelope, WS-Addressing,
> WS-Policy, etc., etc.) or are you basing your opinion only on
> the whitepaper?
I'm basing my opinion based on the data found in the whitepaper. The dependency tree with any high level protocol is a nightmare. It should be noted that a Web Service stack is now being baked into a number of development environments and tools, which greatly simplifies it's development - there is no similar protocol stack development going on with XMPP and mainstream development tools.
I've worked with a number of the WS- Specs put out by OASIS and with the various flavors of Microsoft Tools [WSE 1.0, 2.0, 3.0] that allow them to be easily integrated into Web Services.
While it's debatable as to with protocol has more dependencies associated with it (WS- or XMPP) I thought some of the PubSub stuff was kinda nice. Not nice enough to justify major changes to the XMPP stuff at this point (especially now that it's been implemented by so many people), but nice enough to be worth a look at if you're going in there anyway.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 5173 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Standards