Marshall T. Rose mrose+mtr.netnews@dbc.mtview.ca.us
Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:03:54 -0800

henrik - with respect: we've had this discussion before. each of us are
stating opinion. you are perfectly free to express your position in
contradiction to mine, as you have done before, do so below, and will no
doubt do in the future. this is termed a disagreement. there's nothing wrong
with that.

for myself, i am familiar with soap's history, infrastructure, and usage,
and i think that my position is a reasonable interpretation of these

as a co-author of soap, you too have a context which leads you to believe
that your position is a reasonable interpretation of these things...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <frystyk@microsoft.com>
To: "melhaas" <melhaas@lucent.com>; <bxxpwg@invisibleworlds.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 09:03
Subject: RE: [BXXPwg] BEEP vs. SOAP?

> Unfortunately this is not an accurate picture of what SOAP is (which I
> out at the last IETF meeting in Pittsburgh) and I would urge the owner of
> page [1] to update it.
> There is nothing in SOAP that talks about it being a tightly coupled RPC
> system. It is a one-way message protocol that can (as many other
protocols) be
> used by applications that define certain programming models that can be as
> tightly or as loosely coupled as one desire.
> Saying that a protocol like SOAP implies tightly coupling is based on a
> misconception of what makes an application tightly or loosely coupled.
> Btw, SOAP is in no way limited to being used in combination with HTTP. As
> example, SOAP can quite easily be used in combination with MIME
multipart -
> there is a small spec describing how this can be done at
> It's one of the few specs that prides itself of not inventing anything
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> mailto:frystyk@microsoft.com
> [1] http://bxxp.org/bxxp/info/qanda.jsp
> _______________________________________________
> BXXPwg mailing list
> BXXPwg@lists.invisible.net
> http://lists.invisible.net/mailman/listinfo/bxxpwg