• To: "'Paul Prescod'" <paul@p...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: SOAP and Firewalls
• From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@A...>
• Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:27:22 -0800

> From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@p...]

<snip/>

> I think you misread my proposal. (maybe)
> 
> I'm asking people who are not interested in conforming to Web
> architecture merely to change their end-point URIs from
> 
> http://www.foo.bar/myservice
> 
> to
> 
> http://www.foo.bar:987/myservice
> 
> We could make it even easier. We could define a SOAP URI that implied
> the ":987" bit.

Your right. I did misread it. If it's as simple as recommending that
developers use a different port without throwing out all those HTTP-oriented
tools for doing it, then that's fine with me. However -- to be honest -- my
firewall administrator is going to ask me why I can't just use port 80. But
in terms of defining SOAP specs and best practices, and getting the vendors
thinking more about best practices, this is just fine with me.

• Prev by Date: Re: SOAP and Firewalls
• Next by Date: RE: SOAP-RPC and REST and security
• Previous by thread: Re: SOAP and Firewalls
• Next by thread: The InfoApocalypse
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread