• From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@m...>
• To: David Brownell <david-b@p...>, Al Snell <alaric@a...>,Brendan Macmillan <bren@m...>
• Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 08:44:17 -0700

Without going into details of the discussion, I would just as a reminder
like to point out that SOAP doesn't aspire to be a distributed object
system. It is a nothing more than a wire protocol.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@m...

>Wrong; that's one mechanism within the architecture.  Normally 
>implemented using IIOP, but potentially also using some sort 
>of SOAP profile.  Brendan had it right, except that managing 
>state is an application's responsibility (though one can argue 
>about shared responsibilities during object activation).

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: CORBA vs. XML (was: Re: XML.COM: How I Learned to Love daBomb)
    • From: Alaric Snell <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: CORBA vs. XML (was: Re: XML.COM: How I Learned to Love daBomb)
• Next by Date: Re: XML.COM: How I Learned to Love daBomb
• Previous by thread: Re: CORBA vs. XML (was: Re: XML.COM: How I Learned to Love daBomb)
• Next by thread: RE: CORBA vs. XML (was: Re: XML.COM: How I Learned to Love daBomb)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread