tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11628709.post111180948976749262..comments2018-02-04T18:54:09.054-05:00Comments on Chuck Hinson: SOAP Transport IndependenceChuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03276610016389894438noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11628709.post-1112335808793115232005-04-01T01:10:00.000-05:002005-04-01T01:10:00.000-05:00As someone working in IT security, I am apalled at...As someone working in IT security, I am apalled at the thought that programmers are using all sorts of different protocols over port 80! I hope that's forbidden by all organizations having security standards and policies! In several large financial organizations I know, http is only allowed to go over specified proxies. Depending on where your server or application is and depending on if you want to transmit over a B2B firewall or an internet firewall, the protocol http could indeed be unavailable. Using an alternative protocol, such as MQ-Series, Jabber or SMTP is in certain circumstances neccessary, although such cases are rare. If you're working with legacy applications, sometimes they are only capable of using MQ-Series or FTP or SMTP protocols, too. That's probably the more common reason for using protocols other than http for soap.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11628709.post-1112287660295933332005-03-31T11:47:00.000-05:002005-03-31T11:47:00.000-05:00Why, indeed. Chuck, take a browse through Mark Bak...Why, indeed. <BR/><BR/>Chuck, take a browse through <A HREF="http://www.markbaker.ca/2002/09/Blog/" REL="nofollow">Mark Baker's Archives</A>.<BR/><BR/>Protocol independance may be the last WS sacred cow. None of the astronauts are quite capable of justifying it under any kind of 80/20 and yet they all claim it's absolutely necessary for web services to succeed. <BR/><BR/>We think it's folly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com