Lists Home |
Date Index |
9/14/2002 8:26:35 AM, "Alessandro Triglia" <email@example.com> wrote:
>Comparing XML with ASN.1 is fundamentally meaningless.
Understood. I was simplifying for the sake of pontificating.
I meant "protocols in text format defined with XML technologies"
vs "protocols using whatever format is most appropriate defined
>Among other things, this allows exploiting the binary
>encoding rules of ASN.1 to save bandwidth and CPU cycles wherever this
"whenever this makes sense" being the operative phrase, right? My
point was that to maximally leverage the network effect, it often
makes sense to optimize something other than bandwidth and CPU
in designing protocols and other standards, basically so that automated
supply chains (or whatever) can be extended to very small players
and devices at an affordable cost. That means that "hubs" can get
into situations where all those messages that were designed to leverage
mindshare, ubitquitous XML and internet tools, ease of deployment, etc.
can be overwhelmed. THAT is the market that Datapower and all the
other companies with similar products is trying to reach.
So, I agree that comparing XML and ASN.1 is meaningless. Perhaps the world
of B2B messaging / Web Services / application integration would be a better
place if ASN.1 was the buzzword du jour, with tool vendors practically giving
away sophisticated development products, marketing weasels fighting to
get mindshare for their flavor of ASN.1-aware middleware products, publishers
stuffing the shelves of Amazon and Borders with "ASN.1 for Dummies"
"ASN.1 for Pointy Haired Bosses", "ASN.1 for Smart People", etc. books.
Still, for better or worse, all this stuff is happening with XML-based