From: Jeff Bone (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Oct 02 2000 - 19:10:49 PDT
> So, SUDS could be very dangerous if it allowed arbitrary traffic to
> arbitrary points, but at least it sounds as if the endpoints of traffic are
> SUDS agents.
Remember, one problem we're trying to route around here, on some level, is
system administrators. They're damage. ;-)
> Of course you'd have to masquerade SUDS as HTTP (as SOAP has done) in order
> to be able to get that connection out in the first place.
SUDS *is* SOAP, is HTTP. It's just a naming and connection service for SOAP
services. Think of it as the equivalent of the pieces of the various CORBA
naming & location related object services plus some of the basic bus-like ORB
functionality, but for SOAP. Or, similarly, Jini for SOAP. These are both
rough and broken analogies, but they'll suffice for an initial pitch. ;-)
> And, it probably
> wouldn't be very real-time, would it?
Sure, why not? Just as realtime as proxying browser traffic across a firewall.
In the mentioned case above of polling there could be significant latency, but
in each of the referrer or persistent connection cases the latency is minimal.
I imagine amortizing the additional cost of connection setup across the lifetime
of many services would eliminate it entirely.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 19:28:02 PDT