[10026] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: Java and HTML and well known socket numbers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Burchard)
Sat Jun 1 22:42:51 1996
From: Paul Burchard <burchard@cs.princeton.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 96 22:36:55 -0400
To: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>
Cc: www-html@w3.org, www-talk@w3.org
Reply-To: burchard@cs.princeton.edu
Resent-From: www-talk@w3.org
MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com> writes:
> The majority of the designs anticipated using Java are
> more properly handled when viewing Java as a new resource
> type instead of linked hard with http/html.
There is no "hard link" between Java and HTTP -- or for that
matter, between HTML and HTTP. The whole point of a generic
transfer protocol like HTTP is to handle "new resource types"
without requiring a completely new protocol for every application.
It's true that currently HTTP is suboptimal for transferring large
numbers of small files (this is *not* a Java-specific problem), but
HTTP/1.1 will alleviate the problem by standardizing persistent
connections and pipelined requests.
> Most critically the concept of clients sending applets *to* a
> server to be executed on the server - this is outside the
> scope of an httpd.
So PUT and POST are outside the scope of HTTP?
Russell Holt <holtrf@destinyusa.com> writes:
> What about a java ORB?
Now *this* makes some sense. For example, ILU will also be
switching their "string binding handles" to URL syntax.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Burchard <burchard@cs.princeton.edu>
``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''
--------------------------------------------------------------------
