Re: Linux server as it own firewall

From: Charles Miller (cmiller@pastiche.org)
Date: 09/16/01


From: Charles Miller <cmiller@pastiche.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 20:05:07 +1000
To: "Rob 'Feztaa' Park" <fezziker@home.com>
Subject: Re: Linux server as it own firewall
Message-ID: <20010916200507.B17238@pastiche.org>

On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 11:52:23PM -0600, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Seth Arnold (dis)graced my inbox with this:
> > The idea is to package "objects" into XML, encoded over http, in order
> > to allow RPC-like functionality through firewalls that allow http
> > access. SOAP is only one example of abuse of http... :)
>
> I find it strange that the w3c is advocating this... Aren't they supposed
> to be the good guys? Fighting to keep the html standards open and free,
> keeping MS and NS browsers compatible the best they can...

SOAP is an expansion of XML-RPC. It is a way of encoding a procedure call
in XML for transport over some other medium. While SOAP over HTTP is
the most popular binding, SOAP itself is transport-agnostic, and
implementations of SOAP over SMTP also exist.

There's no need for XML-RPC to have a whole new transport mechanism
when something as convenient as HTTP exists - it's direct, widely
deployed and is really already an RPC transport mechanism that hasn't
been fully exploited before because of this whole 'web page' distraction.

Take a CGI script. It takes an HTTP request as input (with optional
arguments), does some processing, and returns some response that
may, or may not be a web page. All SOAP does, is provide a mechanism
for the script to take a richer set of inputs, and provide a less
display-oriented output. As most of SOAP's detractors point out,
there's nothing you can do with SOAP that you can't already do
with existing technology.

Charles Miller

-- 
"There's a Vancouver Smalltalk User's Group. But I think they all just sit 
in a circle and say, "Hi, my name is Bob, and I haven't used Smalltalk in 
6 weeks." -- Mike Bell