Subject: [BEEPwg] SOAP over BEEP

From: Mark C <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:01:01 -0800 (PST)

Hi

I have some questions regarding SOAP over BEEP.

1) What is the motivation for providing SOAP bindings with BEEP?

2) How the *asynchrony* would be achieved in SOAP over BEEP? Also does this "synchrony" makes senses for "RPC" (RPC style in SOAP) or it would be just useful to "messaging" (messaging style in SOAP).

3) Would SOAP over BEEP, provides other features of BEEP like sending simultaneous and independent data etc.?

4) Is there any implementation of SOAP over BEEP exists?

5) Would SOAP over BEEP support "Soap with Attachments", "SOAP DSig", "XKMS" and other upcoming standards. in near future?

regards,

/Mark C.

---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!

---

From: Gabe Wachob <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:00:43 -0800 (PST)

> 1) What is the motivation for providing SOAP bindings with BEEP?

For me, its that BEEP is a better transport for some message patterns than
HTTP. I'm far more interested in the non-RPC uses of SOAP, and HTTP isn't
neccesary ideal for those situations.

Also, if you have BEEP infrastructure deployed (ie firewall support, BEEP
code deployed), I'd like to be able to use SOAP on it instead of having to
deploy HTTP as well. In the long run, I think the security features of
BEEP (that is, extensibility) will make BEEP more attractive in some
network environments than opening up HTTP ports.

> 2) How the *asynchrony* would be achieved in SOAP over BEEP? Also does
> this "synchrony" makes senses for "RPC" (RPC style in SOAP) or it
> would be just useful to "messaging" (messaging style in SOAP).

Well, remember that SOAP doesn't say anything about synchronicity vs.
asynchronicity except at the transport binding level. SOAP/BEEP does
describe RPC as happening over a single channel, and I imagine thats
satisfactory in 99% of the cases where you are doing RPC.

> simultaneous and independent data etc.?

Sure. You could imagine two peers opening a SOAP channel (for conducting
SOAP transactions) and opening a file transfer channel or an "chat"
channel or whatever. To use the same underlying TCP connection, you'd have
to have multiple profiles share the same BEEP endpoint..

> 4) Is there any implementation of SOAP over BEEP exists?

Not that I know of, though I have heard rumors of interest..

> 5) Would SOAP over BEEP support "Soap with Attachments", "SOAP DSig",
> "XKMS" and other upcoming standards. in near future?

Well, since BEEP provides a MIME payload, and SwA assumes a MIME wrapper,
I think that would be straightforward. As for DSig - as far as I remember,
thats not visible to the transport, so that should drop into a SOAP
message over BEEP.

HTH

	-Gabe

-- 
Gabe Wachob                   [email-masked]
Personal                   http://www.wachob.com
CTO, WiredObjects    http://www.wiredobjects.com

_______________________________________________
BEEPwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.beepcore.org/mailman/listinfo/beepwg

---

From: Ward Harold <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 12:38:56 -0600

> Not that I know of, though I have heard rumors of interest..

beepcore-tcl has an implementation. I tried adapting the new Apache Axis code
for a couple of weeks but their transport mechanism didn't handle
session-oriented transports and they weren't interested in addressing the
problem so I gave up.

... WkH

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:53:30 -0800

> session-oriented transports and they weren't interested in addressing the

clipcode has an implementation as well in .NET - http://www.clicpode.com/peer/developer.htm

/mtr

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:54:23 -0800

> 5) Would SOAP over BEEP support "Soap with Attachments", "SOAP DSig", "XKMS" and other upcoming standards. in near future?

the spec says "yes". at present, the soap package for tcl says "no". i hear that's going to change soon...

/mtr