---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 05:21:23 -0700
From: Mark Ryland <markry @
MICROSOFT .
COM>
Reply-To: Distributed COM-Based Code <DCOM @
LISTSERV .
MSN .
COM>
To: DCOM @
LISTSERV .
MSN .
COM
Subject: Re: Dcom Rollout
[snip]
>5) We are an ActiveX Control vendor. I like the idea of a Java
>script/applet on the client talking to a control instance on a server - an
>easy way to get a persistant instance, rather than CGI, ISAPI which seem
>to go away after every HTTP call. (Am I correct in this? - I read about
The idea of direct communication between a client and an object on the
server with state reflecting its use by that client is really the whole
point behind DCOM. DCOM is optimized for that particular usage --
server state, logical connections, method calls, and marshaled
parameters -- unlike raw HTTP. On the other hand, DCOM is not optimized
to do what HTTP does well -- stateless data distribution and streaming.
Both obviously have their place. Indeed, DCOM will soon be able to run
over HTTP as one of its transports so that people can (if they want to)
take advantage of punching through port-based firewalls, etc.
Good questions!
Mark Ryland
Technical Evangelist, DRG
markry @
microsoft .
com
=====================End of Forwarded Message=============================
Is it just me, or does everyone else see a problem with every vendor in
the world encapsulating over HTTP so the users can get right through the
firewall? IMNSHO we need a way to identify and block non-content HTTP.
Is anyone aware of any initiatives in this direction?
If I was more sensationalist, I'd have titled it "Microsoft wants users to
be able to break security policies by punching through firewalls"
Paul
(Who's pretty much expecting even Russ "Defender of the Empire" Cooper to
agree with the Rebel Alliance on this one ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
proberts @
clark .
net which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
PSB#9280
|
|
