Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "David Orchard" <email@example.com>
- To: "K.Kawaguchi" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 16:53:33 -0800
I absolutely believe that xml over smtp/pop3 is a valid format/protocol
combo. I have suggested this at many of the talks I have given.
Some of the advantages and particular features:
o existing servers (exchange/domino/many others) with many features (simple
o existing clients
o existing protocols
o existing client APIs (jmapi, ...)
o security for clients, servers, messages in transit(smime)
o almost guaranteed delivery or notification of failure
o publish/subscribe servers already (listserv)
o standard addressing mechanism
o Caching/persistence model (leave on server or delete)
o Protocols are already document based (compared to say IIOP)
o no server programming model - how does one program a java service at
o not strong enough reliable delivery
o movement away from non-http protocols, ie webmail instead of smtp/pop
o http asynch protocols emerging - ICE, biztalk, tpaML, ebML
o No componentry available
I've probably missed a number of advantages/disadvantages, but this might
help continue the ball rolling. In general, I think xml over smtp is viable
and cool, I just think that HTTP collective is going to assimilate asynch
xml messaging at a personal (webmail) and at a device level.
IBM technical architect
XML Link co-editor
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 4:41 AM
> To: Simon Hargreaves; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Asynchronous message queue by SMTP&POP3
> > I would have thought layering a messaging protocol over existing email
> > protocols, would be a bad idea. It would be better to have a
> service that
> > could contain proccessing components based on the type of
> message going in
> > e.g. the DTD. and also make it secure e.g. SSL from the start.
> The service
> Well, you are right in the sense that such a full fledged system is
> necessary. I agree.
> But at the same time I personally think that SMTP/POP3 can still work
> very well in many situations; especially for lightweight systems.
> Or, is it only me who feel like this? If so, what am I missing?
> Yet unsolved question is whether such a component already exists or
> K.Kawaguchi Swift,Inc.