xml-dev - RE: Asynchronous message queue by SMTP&POP3

["David Orchard" <orchard@pacificspirit.com>]

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
routing/filtering)
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)


Disadvantages:
o no server programming model - how does one program a java service at
orchard@pacificspirit.com?
o not strong enough reliable delivery
o movement away from non-http protocols, ie webmail instead of smtp/pop
clients
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.

Cheers,
Dave Orchard
IBM technical architect
XML Link co-editor

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xml-dev@xml.org [mailto:owner-xml-dev@xml.org]On Behalf Of
> K.Kawaguchi
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 4:41 AM
> To: Simon Hargreaves; xml-dev@xml.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
> not...
>
>
> ----------------------
> K.Kawaguchi     Swift,Inc.
> E-Mail:k-kawa@swiftinc.co.jp
>
>
>