xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Bradford <bradf...@dbxmlgroup.com>
Subject Re: Project Labrador
Date Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:23:04 GMT
Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
> Why do we need a another request broker. Maybe I'm to ignorant here, but I don't
> see the need!

The goal is not to be a SOAP or XML-RPC toolkit, but if you place it in
that context, then you're argument is correct.  It's purely for servers,
and will have no client capabilties to speak of.  The goal is simplicity
and transparency.  SOAP and XML-RPC are not to the only protocols that
it would be able to expose transparently...  Standard GETs may be
supported, as well as protocols like IIOP.

To have an object or to write a resolver that transparent exposes
functionality to any of several protocols without having to master those
protocols or their toolkits is a very powerful proposition.

But, like I said, this is not an Apache project, and doesn't have to
be.  It is valuable enough that I believe it should be.

-- 
Tom Bradford - http://www.tbradford.org
Developer - Apache Xindice (formerly dbXML)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org


Mime
View raw message