You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to soap-user@xml.apache.org by Claes Holmerson <cl...@masystem.se> on 2000/09/04 08:56:09 UTC
SOAP and servlet engine
Hello,
I have been looking at SOAP as a replacement/complement to RMI for the
application we are developing. I wonder one thing though: will SOAP always
need a webserver with a JSP/Servlet engine? I understand that this could be
the focus for the Apache SOAP implementation, but for many applications this
is not convienient. Or have I misunderstood something?
Regards,
Claes
---------------------------------------------------------
Claes Holmerson MA-system Control AB
claes.holmerson@masystem.se
Direct +46 (0)46 325242 http://www.masystem.se
Fax +46 (0)46 151074
---------------------------------------------------------
Re: SOAP and servlet engine (my 2 cents woth)
Posted by George I Matkovits <ma...@uswest.net>.
Sorry but I am also biased. I just posted to the Apache Soap an SSL extension which were
really minimal. I am also planning a full blown set of 'security' extensions because that is
what my company needs for Web Services. The most difficult thing is going to be to keep
compatibility with the already existing Soap implementations (like MSFT's ) while going ahead
with a full blown secure PKI based HTTPs implementation which will also have Server Side
ACLs. I almost believe that I know how to do this within the Java https framework but do not
appreciate yet the endpoint security required by an smtp transport.
Regards - George
Simon Fell wrote:
> Whilst in general i agree with you, SMTP is the internet equivalent of
> MSMQ i would hope to see it used more. Running S/MIME or PGP on SMTP
> SOAP shouldn't be that much more work than HTTPS. One of the things
> we've talked about in the office is why people are looking towards the
> transport to provide authentication & privacy, i don't know if this is
> because its easy (HTTPS is well known and fairly easy to get up and
> running), or because there is no standard for implementing this at the
> SOAP message level.
>
> Cheers
> Simon
>
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 22:21:17 -0500, in soap you wrote:
>
> >Maybe, but the security infrastructure is not really there or even formulated yet. It
> >will be eventually but not yet. IMHO smtp based soap will be used by the 'General
> >Public' to access Web Services for 'casual use' while the HTTP(s) based implementations
> >will be used for B2B. MS (or 3rd party vendors) could make lots of $'s on smtp based
> >implementations when digital certificates will become commonly accepted. Signend XML
> >documents could be exchanged via EMail and could form the basis for light weight order
> >entry and receipt mechanisms. (A PGP based SOAP over smtp?)
> >Regards - George
> >
> >Simon Fell wrote:
> >
> >> Am to infer from this that you don't believe that a SMTP transport for
> >> SOAP is industrial strength ?
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Simon
> >>
> >> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 21:06:14 -0500, in soap you wrote:
> >>
> >> >Sorry, I should have said 'heavy duty or industrial strength' implementations. I am
> >> >also sure that Microsoft's MSMQ, in addition to IBM's MQ Series, will support real
> >> >heavy duty SOAP ASAP. The point I really tried to make is that SOAP's long term
> >> >future is with Web Based 'Service Architectures' aka Windows.net and NOT as a
> >> >replacement for the current generation of LAN protocols. We all know that almost
> >> >anything can be emulated (I am sure that somewhere within IBM they have a 1401
> >> >emulator in Java but I would not want to run an Apache Soap Server on it :-)
> >> >Regards - George (not a sheep :-)
> >> >
> >> >Simon Fell wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> most implementation include HTTP support (it is after all, the only
> >> >> transport mentioned in the spec), however at least 3 implementations
> >> >> support SMTP as well (Apache SOAP, 4S4C & .NET ). I Expect to be using
> >> >> 4S4C with MSMQ in the not to distant future. IIRC someone is using
> >> >> Apache SOAP with JMS.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers
> >> >> Simon
> >> >>
Re: SOAP and servlet engine (my 2 cents woth)
Posted by George I Matkovits <ma...@uswest.net>.
Sorry but I am also biased. I just posted to the Apache Soap an SSL extension which were
really minimal. I am also planning a full blown set of 'security' extensions because that is
what my company needs for Web Services. The most difficult thing is going to be to keep
compatibility with the already existing Soap implementations (like MSFT's ) while going ahead
with a full blown secure PKI based HTTPs implementation which will also have Server Side
ACLs. I almost believe that I know how to do this within the Java https framework but do not
appreciate yet the endpoint security required by an smtp transport.
Regards - George
Simon Fell wrote:
> Whilst in general i agree with you, SMTP is the internet equivalent of
> MSMQ i would hope to see it used more. Running S/MIME or PGP on SMTP
> SOAP shouldn't be that much more work than HTTPS. One of the things
> we've talked about in the office is why people are looking towards the
> transport to provide authentication & privacy, i don't know if this is
> because its easy (HTTPS is well known and fairly easy to get up and
> running), or because there is no standard for implementing this at the
> SOAP message level.
>
> Cheers
> Simon
>
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 22:21:17 -0500, in soap you wrote:
>
> >Maybe, but the security infrastructure is not really there or even formulated yet. It
> >will be eventually but not yet. IMHO smtp based soap will be used by the 'General
> >Public' to access Web Services for 'casual use' while the HTTP(s) based implementations
> >will be used for B2B. MS (or 3rd party vendors) could make lots of $'s on smtp based
> >implementations when digital certificates will become commonly accepted. Signend XML
> >documents could be exchanged via EMail and could form the basis for light weight order
> >entry and receipt mechanisms. (A PGP based SOAP over smtp?)
> >Regards - George
> >
> >Simon Fell wrote:
> >
> >> Am to infer from this that you don't believe that a SMTP transport for
> >> SOAP is industrial strength ?
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Simon
> >>
> >> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 21:06:14 -0500, in soap you wrote:
> >>
> >> >Sorry, I should have said 'heavy duty or industrial strength' implementations. I am
> >> >also sure that Microsoft's MSMQ, in addition to IBM's MQ Series, will support real
> >> >heavy duty SOAP ASAP. The point I really tried to make is that SOAP's long term
> >> >future is with Web Based 'Service Architectures' aka Windows.net and NOT as a
> >> >replacement for the current generation of LAN protocols. We all know that almost
> >> >anything can be emulated (I am sure that somewhere within IBM they have a 1401
> >> >emulator in Java but I would not want to run an Apache Soap Server on it :-)
> >> >Regards - George (not a sheep :-)
> >> >
> >> >Simon Fell wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> most implementation include HTTP support (it is after all, the only
> >> >> transport mentioned in the spec), however at least 3 implementations
> >> >> support SMTP as well (Apache SOAP, 4S4C & .NET ). I Expect to be using
> >> >> 4S4C with MSMQ in the not to distant future. IIRC someone is using
> >> >> Apache SOAP with JMS.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers
> >> >> Simon
> >> >>
Re: SOAP and servlet engine (my 2 cents woth)
Posted by Simon Fell <so...@zaks.demon.co.uk>.
Whilst in general i agree with you, SMTP is the internet equivalent of
MSMQ i would hope to see it used more. Running S/MIME or PGP on SMTP
SOAP shouldn't be that much more work than HTTPS. One of the things
we've talked about in the office is why people are looking towards the
transport to provide authentication & privacy, i don't know if this is
because its easy (HTTPS is well known and fairly easy to get up and
running), or because there is no standard for implementing this at the
SOAP message level.
Cheers
Simon
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 22:21:17 -0500, in soap you wrote:
>Maybe, but the security infrastructure is not really there or even formulated yet. It
>will be eventually but not yet. IMHO smtp based soap will be used by the 'General
>Public' to access Web Services for 'casual use' while the HTTP(s) based implementations
>will be used for B2B. MS (or 3rd party vendors) could make lots of $'s on smtp based
>implementations when digital certificates will become commonly accepted. Signend XML
>documents could be exchanged via EMail and could form the basis for light weight order
>entry and receipt mechanisms. (A PGP based SOAP over smtp?)
>Regards - George
>
>Simon Fell wrote:
>
>> Am to infer from this that you don't believe that a SMTP transport for
>> SOAP is industrial strength ?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Simon
>>
>> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 21:06:14 -0500, in soap you wrote:
>>
>> >Sorry, I should have said 'heavy duty or industrial strength' implementations. I am
>> >also sure that Microsoft's MSMQ, in addition to IBM's MQ Series, will support real
>> >heavy duty SOAP ASAP. The point I really tried to make is that SOAP's long term
>> >future is with Web Based 'Service Architectures' aka Windows.net and NOT as a
>> >replacement for the current generation of LAN protocols. We all know that almost
>> >anything can be emulated (I am sure that somewhere within IBM they have a 1401
>> >emulator in Java but I would not want to run an Apache Soap Server on it :-)
>> >Regards - George (not a sheep :-)
>> >
>> >Simon Fell wrote:
>> >
>> >> most implementation include HTTP support (it is after all, the only
>> >> transport mentioned in the spec), however at least 3 implementations
>> >> support SMTP as well (Apache SOAP, 4S4C & .NET ). I Expect to be using
>> >> 4S4C with MSMQ in the not to distant future. IIRC someone is using
>> >> Apache SOAP with JMS.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >> Simon
>> >>
Re: SOAP and servlet engine (my 2 cents woth)
Posted by Simon Fell <so...@zaks.demon.co.uk>.
Whilst in general i agree with you, SMTP is the internet equivalent of
MSMQ i would hope to see it used more. Running S/MIME or PGP on SMTP
SOAP shouldn't be that much more work than HTTPS. One of the things
we've talked about in the office is why people are looking towards the
transport to provide authentication & privacy, i don't know if this is
because its easy (HTTPS is well known and fairly easy to get up and
running), or because there is no standard for implementing this at the
SOAP message level.
Cheers
Simon
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 22:21:17 -0500, in soap you wrote:
>Maybe, but the security infrastructure is not really there or even formulated yet. It
>will be eventually but not yet. IMHO smtp based soap will be used by the 'General
>Public' to access Web Services for 'casual use' while the HTTP(s) based implementations
>will be used for B2B. MS (or 3rd party vendors) could make lots of $'s on smtp based
>implementations when digital certificates will become commonly accepted. Signend XML
>documents could be exchanged via EMail and could form the basis for light weight order
>entry and receipt mechanisms. (A PGP based SOAP over smtp?)
>Regards - George
>
>Simon Fell wrote:
>
>> Am to infer from this that you don't believe that a SMTP transport for
>> SOAP is industrial strength ?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Simon
>>
>> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 21:06:14 -0500, in soap you wrote:
>>
>> >Sorry, I should have said 'heavy duty or industrial strength' implementations. I am
>> >also sure that Microsoft's MSMQ, in addition to IBM's MQ Series, will support real
>> >heavy duty SOAP ASAP. The point I really tried to make is that SOAP's long term
>> >future is with Web Based 'Service Architectures' aka Windows.net and NOT as a
>> >replacement for the current generation of LAN protocols. We all know that almost
>> >anything can be emulated (I am sure that somewhere within IBM they have a 1401
>> >emulator in Java but I would not want to run an Apache Soap Server on it :-)
>> >Regards - George (not a sheep :-)
>> >
>> >Simon Fell wrote:
>> >
>> >> most implementation include HTTP support (it is after all, the only
>> >> transport mentioned in the spec), however at least 3 implementations
>> >> support SMTP as well (Apache SOAP, 4S4C & .NET ). I Expect to be using
>> >> 4S4C with MSMQ in the not to distant future. IIRC someone is using
>> >> Apache SOAP with JMS.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >> Simon
>> >>
Re: SOAP and servlet engine (my 2 cents woth)
Posted by George I Matkovits <ma...@uswest.net>.
Maybe, but the security infrastructure is not really there or even formulated yet. It
will be eventually but not yet. IMHO smtp based soap will be used by the 'General
Public' to access Web Services for 'casual use' while the HTTP(s) based implementations
will be used for B2B. MS (or 3rd party vendors) could make lots of $'s on smtp based
implementations when digital certificates will become commonly accepted. Signend XML
documents could be exchanged via EMail and could form the basis for light weight order
entry and receipt mechanisms. (A PGP based SOAP over smtp?)
Regards - George
Simon Fell wrote:
> Am to infer from this that you don't believe that a SMTP transport for
> SOAP is industrial strength ?
>
> Cheers
> Simon
>
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 21:06:14 -0500, in soap you wrote:
>
> >Sorry, I should have said 'heavy duty or industrial strength' implementations. I am
> >also sure that Microsoft's MSMQ, in addition to IBM's MQ Series, will support real
> >heavy duty SOAP ASAP. The point I really tried to make is that SOAP's long term
> >future is with Web Based 'Service Architectures' aka Windows.net and NOT as a
> >replacement for the current generation of LAN protocols. We all know that almost
> >anything can be emulated (I am sure that somewhere within IBM they have a 1401
> >emulator in Java but I would not want to run an Apache Soap Server on it :-)
> >Regards - George (not a sheep :-)
> >
> >Simon Fell wrote:
> >
> >> most implementation include HTTP support (it is after all, the only
> >> transport mentioned in the spec), however at least 3 implementations
> >> support SMTP as well (Apache SOAP, 4S4C & .NET ). I Expect to be using
> >> 4S4C with MSMQ in the not to distant future. IIRC someone is using
> >> Apache SOAP with JMS.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Simon
> >>
Re: SOAP and servlet engine (my 2 cents woth)
Posted by George I Matkovits <ma...@uswest.net>.
Maybe, but the security infrastructure is not really there or even formulated yet. It
will be eventually but not yet. IMHO smtp based soap will be used by the 'General
Public' to access Web Services for 'casual use' while the HTTP(s) based implementations
will be used for B2B. MS (or 3rd party vendors) could make lots of $'s on smtp based
implementations when digital certificates will become commonly accepted. Signend XML
documents could be exchanged via EMail and could form the basis for light weight order
entry and receipt mechanisms. (A PGP based SOAP over smtp?)
Regards - George
Simon Fell wrote:
> Am to infer from this that you don't believe that a SMTP transport for
> SOAP is industrial strength ?
>
> Cheers
> Simon
>
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 21:06:14 -0500, in soap you wrote:
>
> >Sorry, I should have said 'heavy duty or industrial strength' implementations. I am
> >also sure that Microsoft's MSMQ, in addition to IBM's MQ Series, will support real
> >heavy duty SOAP ASAP. The point I really tried to make is that SOAP's long term
> >future is with Web Based 'Service Architectures' aka Windows.net and NOT as a
> >replacement for the current generation of LAN protocols. We all know that almost
> >anything can be emulated (I am sure that somewhere within IBM they have a 1401
> >emulator in Java but I would not want to run an Apache Soap Server on it :-)
> >Regards - George (not a sheep :-)
> >
> >Simon Fell wrote:
> >
> >> most implementation include HTTP support (it is after all, the only
> >> transport mentioned in the spec), however at least 3 implementations
> >> support SMTP as well (Apache SOAP, 4S4C & .NET ). I Expect to be using
> >> 4S4C with MSMQ in the not to distant future. IIRC someone is using
> >> Apache SOAP with JMS.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Simon
> >>
Re: SOAP and servlet engine (my 2 cents woth)
Posted by Simon Fell <so...@zaks.demon.co.uk>.
Am to infer from this that you don't believe that a SMTP transport for
SOAP is industrial strength ?
Cheers
Simon
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 21:06:14 -0500, in soap you wrote:
>Sorry, I should have said 'heavy duty or industrial strength' implementations. I am
>also sure that Microsoft's MSMQ, in addition to IBM's MQ Series, will support real
>heavy duty SOAP ASAP. The point I really tried to make is that SOAP's long term
>future is with Web Based 'Service Architectures' aka Windows.net and NOT as a
>replacement for the current generation of LAN protocols. We all know that almost
>anything can be emulated (I am sure that somewhere within IBM they have a 1401
>emulator in Java but I would not want to run an Apache Soap Server on it :-)
>Regards - George (not a sheep :-)
>
>Simon Fell wrote:
>
>> most implementation include HTTP support (it is after all, the only
>> transport mentioned in the spec), however at least 3 implementations
>> support SMTP as well (Apache SOAP, 4S4C & .NET ). I Expect to be using
>> 4S4C with MSMQ in the not to distant future. IIRC someone is using
>> Apache SOAP with JMS.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Simon
>>
Re: SOAP and servlet engine (my 2 cents woth)
Posted by Simon Fell <so...@zaks.demon.co.uk>.
Am to infer from this that you don't believe that a SMTP transport for
SOAP is industrial strength ?
Cheers
Simon
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 21:06:14 -0500, in soap you wrote:
>Sorry, I should have said 'heavy duty or industrial strength' implementations. I am
>also sure that Microsoft's MSMQ, in addition to IBM's MQ Series, will support real
>heavy duty SOAP ASAP. The point I really tried to make is that SOAP's long term
>future is with Web Based 'Service Architectures' aka Windows.net and NOT as a
>replacement for the current generation of LAN protocols. We all know that almost
>anything can be emulated (I am sure that somewhere within IBM they have a 1401
>emulator in Java but I would not want to run an Apache Soap Server on it :-)
>Regards - George (not a sheep :-)
>
>Simon Fell wrote:
>
>> most implementation include HTTP support (it is after all, the only
>> transport mentioned in the spec), however at least 3 implementations
>> support SMTP as well (Apache SOAP, 4S4C & .NET ). I Expect to be using
>> 4S4C with MSMQ in the not to distant future. IIRC someone is using
>> Apache SOAP with JMS.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Simon
>>
Re: SOAP and servlet engine (my 2 cents woth)
Posted by George I Matkovits <ma...@uswest.net>.
Sorry, I should have said 'heavy duty or industrial strength' implementations. I am
also sure that Microsoft's MSMQ, in addition to IBM's MQ Series, will support real
heavy duty SOAP ASAP. The point I really tried to make is that SOAP's long term
future is with Web Based 'Service Architectures' aka Windows.net and NOT as a
replacement for the current generation of LAN protocols. We all know that almost
anything can be emulated (I am sure that somewhere within IBM they have a 1401
emulator in Java but I would not want to run an Apache Soap Server on it :-)
Regards - George (not a sheep :-)
Simon Fell wrote:
> most implementation include HTTP support (it is after all, the only
> transport mentioned in the spec), however at least 3 implementations
> support SMTP as well (Apache SOAP, 4S4C & .NET ). I Expect to be using
> 4S4C with MSMQ in the not to distant future. IIRC someone is using
> Apache SOAP with JMS.
>
> Cheers
> Simon
>
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 18:46:58 -0500, in soap you wrote:
>
> >Yes you are RIGHT (as always -). BUT while SOAP (the algorithm itself) does not
> >require a web server the current implementations I know of DO!
> >IMHO the intent of the original Microsoft 1.0 specification was that:
> >1.) SOAP must be useable over the open Internet (this means transparent crossing
> >of Firewalls)
> >2.) Reuse of the current Internet infrastructure (i.e.. No new hardware or
> >software is required to support SOAP).
> >3.) System ( Unix, Windows, OS390, AS400) independent specification of the
> >payload.
> >(1) and (2) dictates HTTP and since privacy is a MUST over the open Internet its
> >transport must really be over HTTPS. HHTPS is supported by all the REAL Web
> >servers (like Apache, IIS, Netscape, ...)
> >From (3) follows XML since it is really just 'formatted' fancy ASCII.
> >ALL Web Servers support HTTPS, therefore we use them as default server
> >endpoints. We do not have to, but we do this for very pragmatic implementation
> >reasons. While SOAP is a true Internet protocol its predecessors (like DCOM,
> >RMI and Corba) were architected for a secure and protected LAN.
> >
> >Microsoft needs SOAP to be a standard for access to its upcoming Windows.net
> >Services architecture which will be able to work ONLY on Windows.net but should
> >be accessible from everywhere on the Internet. It is a great marketing ploy and
> >I admire them for pulling it off and rather despise 'us the sheep' who are doing
> >their bidding. My company's customers use our applications on Windows, Unix,
> >Main-frames, Linux, .... All our applications have Web/browser interfaces with
> >interchangeable CGI, AxtiveX (ASP), Servlets or Servlet Pages. We now need to
> >Service Enable them (aka Windows.net) in a compatible manner. This is what SOAP
> >means for us. It should also mean the same for anyone who is not completely
> >innocent or lost (that is the sheep, baa....-)! BUT IMHO it is not going to
> >replace the very efficient and flexible local area RMI, DCOM+ or even CORBA
> >which will be able to inter operate with RMI.
> >Sorry for the effusive rambling but someone had to say the this! (-:
> >Regards - George (the NOT sheep but neither wolf)
> >
> >James Snell wrote:
> >
> >> SOAP is completely independent of the transport mechanism ... or least it
> >> should be. Most of the implementations you see are based around HTTP
> >> because that is the most common usage scenario. To answer your question
> >> then... no it doesn't require a web server.
> >> :-)
> >>
> >> - James
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Claes Holmerson [mailto:claes.holmerson@masystem.se]
> >> Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 11:56 PM
> >> To: 'soap-user@xml.apache.org'
> >> Subject: SOAP and servlet engine
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I have been looking at SOAP as a replacement/complement to RMI for the
> >> application we are developing. I wonder one thing though: will SOAP always
> >> need a webserver with a JSP/Servlet engine? I understand that this could be
> >> the focus for the Apache SOAP implementation, but for many applications this
> >> is not convienient. Or have I misunderstood something?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Claes
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> Claes Holmerson MA-system Control AB
> >> claes.holmerson@masystem.se
> >> Direct +46 (0)46 325242 http://www.masystem.se
> >> Fax +46 (0)46 151074
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
Re: SOAP and servlet engine (my 2 cents woth)
Posted by George I Matkovits <ma...@uswest.net>.
Sorry, I should have said 'heavy duty or industrial strength' implementations. I am
also sure that Microsoft's MSMQ, in addition to IBM's MQ Series, will support real
heavy duty SOAP ASAP. The point I really tried to make is that SOAP's long term
future is with Web Based 'Service Architectures' aka Windows.net and NOT as a
replacement for the current generation of LAN protocols. We all know that almost
anything can be emulated (I am sure that somewhere within IBM they have a 1401
emulator in Java but I would not want to run an Apache Soap Server on it :-)
Regards - George (not a sheep :-)
Simon Fell wrote:
> most implementation include HTTP support (it is after all, the only
> transport mentioned in the spec), however at least 3 implementations
> support SMTP as well (Apache SOAP, 4S4C & .NET ). I Expect to be using
> 4S4C with MSMQ in the not to distant future. IIRC someone is using
> Apache SOAP with JMS.
>
> Cheers
> Simon
>
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 18:46:58 -0500, in soap you wrote:
>
> >Yes you are RIGHT (as always -). BUT while SOAP (the algorithm itself) does not
> >require a web server the current implementations I know of DO!
> >IMHO the intent of the original Microsoft 1.0 specification was that:
> >1.) SOAP must be useable over the open Internet (this means transparent crossing
> >of Firewalls)
> >2.) Reuse of the current Internet infrastructure (i.e.. No new hardware or
> >software is required to support SOAP).
> >3.) System ( Unix, Windows, OS390, AS400) independent specification of the
> >payload.
> >(1) and (2) dictates HTTP and since privacy is a MUST over the open Internet its
> >transport must really be over HTTPS. HHTPS is supported by all the REAL Web
> >servers (like Apache, IIS, Netscape, ...)
> >From (3) follows XML since it is really just 'formatted' fancy ASCII.
> >ALL Web Servers support HTTPS, therefore we use them as default server
> >endpoints. We do not have to, but we do this for very pragmatic implementation
> >reasons. While SOAP is a true Internet protocol its predecessors (like DCOM,
> >RMI and Corba) were architected for a secure and protected LAN.
> >
> >Microsoft needs SOAP to be a standard for access to its upcoming Windows.net
> >Services architecture which will be able to work ONLY on Windows.net but should
> >be accessible from everywhere on the Internet. It is a great marketing ploy and
> >I admire them for pulling it off and rather despise 'us the sheep' who are doing
> >their bidding. My company's customers use our applications on Windows, Unix,
> >Main-frames, Linux, .... All our applications have Web/browser interfaces with
> >interchangeable CGI, AxtiveX (ASP), Servlets or Servlet Pages. We now need to
> >Service Enable them (aka Windows.net) in a compatible manner. This is what SOAP
> >means for us. It should also mean the same for anyone who is not completely
> >innocent or lost (that is the sheep, baa....-)! BUT IMHO it is not going to
> >replace the very efficient and flexible local area RMI, DCOM+ or even CORBA
> >which will be able to inter operate with RMI.
> >Sorry for the effusive rambling but someone had to say the this! (-:
> >Regards - George (the NOT sheep but neither wolf)
> >
> >James Snell wrote:
> >
> >> SOAP is completely independent of the transport mechanism ... or least it
> >> should be. Most of the implementations you see are based around HTTP
> >> because that is the most common usage scenario. To answer your question
> >> then... no it doesn't require a web server.
> >> :-)
> >>
> >> - James
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Claes Holmerson [mailto:claes.holmerson@masystem.se]
> >> Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 11:56 PM
> >> To: 'soap-user@xml.apache.org'
> >> Subject: SOAP and servlet engine
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I have been looking at SOAP as a replacement/complement to RMI for the
> >> application we are developing. I wonder one thing though: will SOAP always
> >> need a webserver with a JSP/Servlet engine? I understand that this could be
> >> the focus for the Apache SOAP implementation, but for many applications this
> >> is not convienient. Or have I misunderstood something?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Claes
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> Claes Holmerson MA-system Control AB
> >> claes.holmerson@masystem.se
> >> Direct +46 (0)46 325242 http://www.masystem.se
> >> Fax +46 (0)46 151074
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
Re: SOAP and servlet engine (my 2 cents woth)
Posted by Simon Fell <so...@zaks.demon.co.uk>.
most implementation include HTTP support (it is after all, the only
transport mentioned in the spec), however at least 3 implementations
support SMTP as well (Apache SOAP, 4S4C & .NET ). I Expect to be using
4S4C with MSMQ in the not to distant future. IIRC someone is using
Apache SOAP with JMS.
Cheers
Simon
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 18:46:58 -0500, in soap you wrote:
>Yes you are RIGHT (as always -). BUT while SOAP (the algorithm itself) does not
>require a web server the current implementations I know of DO!
>IMHO the intent of the original Microsoft 1.0 specification was that:
>1.) SOAP must be useable over the open Internet (this means transparent crossing
>of Firewalls)
>2.) Reuse of the current Internet infrastructure (i.e.. No new hardware or
>software is required to support SOAP).
>3.) System ( Unix, Windows, OS390, AS400) independent specification of the
>payload.
>(1) and (2) dictates HTTP and since privacy is a MUST over the open Internet its
>transport must really be over HTTPS. HHTPS is supported by all the REAL Web
>servers (like Apache, IIS, Netscape, ...)
>From (3) follows XML since it is really just 'formatted' fancy ASCII.
>ALL Web Servers support HTTPS, therefore we use them as default server
>endpoints. We do not have to, but we do this for very pragmatic implementation
>reasons. While SOAP is a true Internet protocol its predecessors (like DCOM,
>RMI and Corba) were architected for a secure and protected LAN.
>
>Microsoft needs SOAP to be a standard for access to its upcoming Windows.net
>Services architecture which will be able to work ONLY on Windows.net but should
>be accessible from everywhere on the Internet. It is a great marketing ploy and
>I admire them for pulling it off and rather despise 'us the sheep' who are doing
>their bidding. My company's customers use our applications on Windows, Unix,
>Main-frames, Linux, .... All our applications have Web/browser interfaces with
>interchangeable CGI, AxtiveX (ASP), Servlets or Servlet Pages. We now need to
>Service Enable them (aka Windows.net) in a compatible manner. This is what SOAP
>means for us. It should also mean the same for anyone who is not completely
>innocent or lost (that is the sheep, baa....-)! BUT IMHO it is not going to
>replace the very efficient and flexible local area RMI, DCOM+ or even CORBA
>which will be able to inter operate with RMI.
>Sorry for the effusive rambling but someone had to say the this! (-:
>Regards - George (the NOT sheep but neither wolf)
>
>James Snell wrote:
>
>> SOAP is completely independent of the transport mechanism ... or least it
>> should be. Most of the implementations you see are based around HTTP
>> because that is the most common usage scenario. To answer your question
>> then... no it doesn't require a web server.
>> :-)
>>
>> - James
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Claes Holmerson [mailto:claes.holmerson@masystem.se]
>> Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 11:56 PM
>> To: 'soap-user@xml.apache.org'
>> Subject: SOAP and servlet engine
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have been looking at SOAP as a replacement/complement to RMI for the
>> application we are developing. I wonder one thing though: will SOAP always
>> need a webserver with a JSP/Servlet engine? I understand that this could be
>> the focus for the Apache SOAP implementation, but for many applications this
>> is not convienient. Or have I misunderstood something?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Claes
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Claes Holmerson MA-system Control AB
>> claes.holmerson@masystem.se
>> Direct +46 (0)46 325242 http://www.masystem.se
>> Fax +46 (0)46 151074
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
Re: SOAP and servlet engine (my 2 cents woth)
Posted by Simon Fell <so...@zaks.demon.co.uk>.
most implementation include HTTP support (it is after all, the only
transport mentioned in the spec), however at least 3 implementations
support SMTP as well (Apache SOAP, 4S4C & .NET ). I Expect to be using
4S4C with MSMQ in the not to distant future. IIRC someone is using
Apache SOAP with JMS.
Cheers
Simon
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 18:46:58 -0500, in soap you wrote:
>Yes you are RIGHT (as always -). BUT while SOAP (the algorithm itself) does not
>require a web server the current implementations I know of DO!
>IMHO the intent of the original Microsoft 1.0 specification was that:
>1.) SOAP must be useable over the open Internet (this means transparent crossing
>of Firewalls)
>2.) Reuse of the current Internet infrastructure (i.e.. No new hardware or
>software is required to support SOAP).
>3.) System ( Unix, Windows, OS390, AS400) independent specification of the
>payload.
>(1) and (2) dictates HTTP and since privacy is a MUST over the open Internet its
>transport must really be over HTTPS. HHTPS is supported by all the REAL Web
>servers (like Apache, IIS, Netscape, ...)
>From (3) follows XML since it is really just 'formatted' fancy ASCII.
>ALL Web Servers support HTTPS, therefore we use them as default server
>endpoints. We do not have to, but we do this for very pragmatic implementation
>reasons. While SOAP is a true Internet protocol its predecessors (like DCOM,
>RMI and Corba) were architected for a secure and protected LAN.
>
>Microsoft needs SOAP to be a standard for access to its upcoming Windows.net
>Services architecture which will be able to work ONLY on Windows.net but should
>be accessible from everywhere on the Internet. It is a great marketing ploy and
>I admire them for pulling it off and rather despise 'us the sheep' who are doing
>their bidding. My company's customers use our applications on Windows, Unix,
>Main-frames, Linux, .... All our applications have Web/browser interfaces with
>interchangeable CGI, AxtiveX (ASP), Servlets or Servlet Pages. We now need to
>Service Enable them (aka Windows.net) in a compatible manner. This is what SOAP
>means for us. It should also mean the same for anyone who is not completely
>innocent or lost (that is the sheep, baa....-)! BUT IMHO it is not going to
>replace the very efficient and flexible local area RMI, DCOM+ or even CORBA
>which will be able to inter operate with RMI.
>Sorry for the effusive rambling but someone had to say the this! (-:
>Regards - George (the NOT sheep but neither wolf)
>
>James Snell wrote:
>
>> SOAP is completely independent of the transport mechanism ... or least it
>> should be. Most of the implementations you see are based around HTTP
>> because that is the most common usage scenario. To answer your question
>> then... no it doesn't require a web server.
>> :-)
>>
>> - James
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Claes Holmerson [mailto:claes.holmerson@masystem.se]
>> Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 11:56 PM
>> To: 'soap-user@xml.apache.org'
>> Subject: SOAP and servlet engine
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have been looking at SOAP as a replacement/complement to RMI for the
>> application we are developing. I wonder one thing though: will SOAP always
>> need a webserver with a JSP/Servlet engine? I understand that this could be
>> the focus for the Apache SOAP implementation, but for many applications this
>> is not convienient. Or have I misunderstood something?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Claes
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Claes Holmerson MA-system Control AB
>> claes.holmerson@masystem.se
>> Direct +46 (0)46 325242 http://www.masystem.se
>> Fax +46 (0)46 151074
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
Re: SOAP and servlet engine (my 2 cents woth)
Posted by George I Matkovits <ma...@uswest.net>.
Yes you are RIGHT (as always -). BUT while SOAP (the algorithm itself) does not
require a web server the current implementations I know of DO!
IMHO the intent of the original Microsoft 1.0 specification was that:
1.) SOAP must be useable over the open Internet (this means transparent crossing
of Firewalls)
2.) Reuse of the current Internet infrastructure (i.e.. No new hardware or
software is required to support SOAP).
3.) System ( Unix, Windows, OS390, AS400) independent specification of the
payload.
(1) and (2) dictates HTTP and since privacy is a MUST over the open Internet its
transport must really be over HTTPS. HHTPS is supported by all the REAL Web
servers (like Apache, IIS, Netscape, ...)
Re: SOAP and servlet engine (my 2 cents woth)
Posted by George I Matkovits <ma...@uswest.net>.
Yes you are RIGHT (as always -). BUT while SOAP (the algorithm itself) does not
require a web server the current implementations I know of DO!
IMHO the intent of the original Microsoft 1.0 specification was that:
1.) SOAP must be useable over the open Internet (this means transparent crossing
of Firewalls)
2.) Reuse of the current Internet infrastructure (i.e.. No new hardware or
software is required to support SOAP).
3.) System ( Unix, Windows, OS390, AS400) independent specification of the
payload.
(1) and (2) dictates HTTP and since privacy is a MUST over the open Internet its
transport must really be over HTTPS. HHTPS is supported by all the REAL Web
servers (like Apache, IIS, Netscape, ...)
RE: SOAP and servlet engine
Posted by Tony Hong <to...@usa.net>.
A couple of other quick notes -
Chapter 18 of the book "Professional XML" from Wrox (ISBN 1-861003-11-0)
provides an example of a SOAP server, written in C++ / COM, that acts as a
unified listener - SOAP processor. The only requirement for HTTP-based SOAP
implementations is that the SOAP endpoint listener receive an HTTP post,
unwrap and process the SOAP request, and then return a response or fault.
I'm sure there are many other examples of servers that are monolitic
listener/SOAP processors (and do not rely on JSP/Servlet infrastructure),
but that's the first that comes to mind.
To add to James' point on non-HTTP transports, you can see a good example
right in the Apache SOAP toolkit. The StockQuote example uses SMTP as its
transport. Also, once Biztalk, which uses an asynchronous
messaging-oriented paradigm, gets going, I imagine that you'll see a lot of
SOAP floating on things like MQSeries, MSMQ, Tibco Rendezvous, etc. as
enterprises gear up their existing messaging systems to exchange biztalk
docs.
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: James Snell [mailto:jsnell@lemoorenet.com]
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 9:42 AM
To: soap-user@xml.apache.org
Subject: RE: SOAP and servlet engine
SOAP is completely independent of the transport mechanism ... or least it
should be. Most of the implementations you see are based around HTTP
because that is the most common usage scenario. To answer your question
then... no it doesn't require a web server.
:-)
- James
-----Original Message-----
From: Claes Holmerson [mailto:claes.holmerson@masystem.se]
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 11:56 PM
To: 'soap-user@xml.apache.org'
Subject: SOAP and servlet engine
Hello,
I have been looking at SOAP as a replacement/complement to RMI for the
application we are developing. I wonder one thing though: will SOAP always
need a webserver with a JSP/Servlet engine? I understand that this could be
the focus for the Apache SOAP implementation, but for many applications this
is not convienient. Or have I misunderstood something?
Regards,
Claes
---------------------------------------------------------
Claes Holmerson MA-system Control AB
claes.holmerson@masystem.se
Direct +46 (0)46 325242 http://www.masystem.se
Fax +46 (0)46 151074
---------------------------------------------------------
RE: SOAP and servlet engine
Posted by Tony Hong <to...@usa.net>.
A couple of other quick notes -
Chapter 18 of the book "Professional XML" from Wrox (ISBN 1-861003-11-0)
provides an example of a SOAP server, written in C++ / COM, that acts as a
unified listener - SOAP processor. The only requirement for HTTP-based SOAP
implementations is that the SOAP endpoint listener receive an HTTP post,
unwrap and process the SOAP request, and then return a response or fault.
I'm sure there are many other examples of servers that are monolitic
listener/SOAP processors (and do not rely on JSP/Servlet infrastructure),
but that's the first that comes to mind.
To add to James' point on non-HTTP transports, you can see a good example
right in the Apache SOAP toolkit. The StockQuote example uses SMTP as its
transport. Also, once Biztalk, which uses an asynchronous
messaging-oriented paradigm, gets going, I imagine that you'll see a lot of
SOAP floating on things like MQSeries, MSMQ, Tibco Rendezvous, etc. as
enterprises gear up their existing messaging systems to exchange biztalk
docs.
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: James Snell [mailto:jsnell@lemoorenet.com]
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 9:42 AM
To: soap-user@xml.apache.org
Subject: RE: SOAP and servlet engine
SOAP is completely independent of the transport mechanism ... or least it
should be. Most of the implementations you see are based around HTTP
because that is the most common usage scenario. To answer your question
then... no it doesn't require a web server.
:-)
- James
-----Original Message-----
From: Claes Holmerson [mailto:claes.holmerson@masystem.se]
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 11:56 PM
To: 'soap-user@xml.apache.org'
Subject: SOAP and servlet engine
Hello,
I have been looking at SOAP as a replacement/complement to RMI for the
application we are developing. I wonder one thing though: will SOAP always
need a webserver with a JSP/Servlet engine? I understand that this could be
the focus for the Apache SOAP implementation, but for many applications this
is not convienient. Or have I misunderstood something?
Regards,
Claes
---------------------------------------------------------
Claes Holmerson MA-system Control AB
claes.holmerson@masystem.se
Direct +46 (0)46 325242 http://www.masystem.se
Fax +46 (0)46 151074
---------------------------------------------------------
RE: SOAP and servlet engine
Posted by James Snell <js...@lemoorenet.com>.
SOAP is completely independent of the transport mechanism ... or least it
should be. Most of the implementations you see are based around HTTP
because that is the most common usage scenario. To answer your question
then... no it doesn't require a web server.
:-)
- James
-----Original Message-----
From: Claes Holmerson [mailto:claes.holmerson@masystem.se]
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 11:56 PM
To: 'soap-user@xml.apache.org'
Subject: SOAP and servlet engine
Hello,
I have been looking at SOAP as a replacement/complement to RMI for the
application we are developing. I wonder one thing though: will SOAP always
need a webserver with a JSP/Servlet engine? I understand that this could be
the focus for the Apache SOAP implementation, but for many applications this
is not convienient. Or have I misunderstood something?
Regards,
Claes
---------------------------------------------------------
Claes Holmerson MA-system Control AB
claes.holmerson@masystem.se
Direct +46 (0)46 325242 http://www.masystem.se
Fax +46 (0)46 151074
---------------------------------------------------------
RE: SOAP and servlet engine
Posted by James Snell <js...@lemoorenet.com>.
SOAP is completely independent of the transport mechanism ... or least it
should be. Most of the implementations you see are based around HTTP
because that is the most common usage scenario. To answer your question
then... no it doesn't require a web server.
:-)
- James
-----Original Message-----
From: Claes Holmerson [mailto:claes.holmerson@masystem.se]
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 11:56 PM
To: 'soap-user@xml.apache.org'
Subject: SOAP and servlet engine
Hello,
I have been looking at SOAP as a replacement/complement to RMI for the
application we are developing. I wonder one thing though: will SOAP always
need a webserver with a JSP/Servlet engine? I understand that this could be
the focus for the Apache SOAP implementation, but for many applications this
is not convienient. Or have I misunderstood something?
Regards,
Claes
---------------------------------------------------------
Claes Holmerson MA-system Control AB
claes.holmerson@masystem.se
Direct +46 (0)46 325242 http://www.masystem.se
Fax +46 (0)46 151074
---------------------------------------------------------