Monday, November 24, 2008

Herewith, a rant: multiple transport bindings considered harmful.

I still hear this and it's getting increasingly annoying. People consider it a good thing for a standard to be able to run over HTTP, BEEP and something else. Has this ever proven to be a good idea? Layering is good for other reasons, but not because it gives implementors a choice that leads to interoperability failure in many cases.

Is it a failure on the part of the designer to understand the usage characteristics of their protocol, and successfully map that onto TCP (connection-oriented), HTTP (stateless respond-and-forget) or something else?

SOAP is supposed to be transport-independent and offer choice, but as I overheard last week, there's a reason they call it web services. And the ultimate in multiple-transport wankery: I once heard somebody propose a schema which they said would run over SOAP or HTTP.

Are there use cases I'm unaware of, where this has been a really good thing for some standard?

2 comments:

ralphm said...

Hey Lisa,

What about this protocol named XMPP, with a TCP and an HTTP binding? I'm sure you've heard of it ;-)

hildjj said...

Slightly less flip than Ralph, there are lots of working implementations of BOSH, the HTTP binding for XMPP.

http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0206.html

Blog Archive

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.