I never said a message broker was SOAP specific.
a message broker that looks at a SOAPAction header isn't SOAP specific?
SOAPAction is a HTTP header - message brokers are HTTP/MIME aware, including
the
ability to deal with HTTP/MIME extension headers, such as SOAPAction. A
message broker is not required to understand the structure and semantics of
a SOAP document.
what you are saying is that there are people out there who do not
understand
the value of clean separation of function between layers. how is that a
justification for a standards-setting organization to propagate that
misunderstanding?
Or perhaps there are people who don't understand message broker concepts.
How is what I've described all that different from inetd? Consider:
|ftp|telnet|finger| |ebXML|GISB|AIAGE5|AS2|
| inetd | | message broker |
| TCP | | HTTP |
........ ...........
What's unclean about this approach, it enables centralized administration,
single security domains, workflow management, a single "choke point" for
security purposes. The "handlers" are in fact separate and distinct layers
from the message broker.
Dick