IPP> What is it we really need?

IPP> What is it we really need?

IPP> What is it we really need?

rdebry at us.ibm.com rdebry at us.ibm.com
Mon Jan 6 13:56:29 EST 1997


Classification:
Prologue:
Epilogue:


Thanks Angelo, it is good to get input from real developers.   However, given
your observation, I still don't know which side of the argument (use http vs.
develop a brand-new protocol) you would come down on.


---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 01/06/97 10:54
AM ---------------------------


        ipp-owner @ pwg.org
        01/06/97 10:35 AM




To: Angelo_Caruso @ wb.xerox.com at internet
cc: ipp @ pwg.org at internet
Subject: Re: IPP> What is it we really need?


Angelo,


Outstanding comments, indeed.  As a real (protocol) implementor, I think
some folks may be sweeping a LOT of implementation realities under the
carpet in trying to leverage HTTP support.


 ...jay


> Since I'm a real (printer) implementor I guess it's time I chimed in. I
>  believe there are many among us who are currently involved in web
>  based application development. As such, we are predisposed to think
>  that developing on top of HTTP is the way to go since we are currently
>  more comfortable with it. However, so called "low level sockets
>  programming" is not as bad as it is being made out to be. There are
>  well defined APIs for TCP level programming on EVERY major OS (what do
>  you think web browsers/servers use anyway?). Furthermore, having
>  recently implemented an embedded web server, I can tell you that there
>  is no such thing as CGI or ASAPI for low end embedded systems. For
>  these systems (and I mean real printers here) it's all C code and
>  there is no advantage to building on HTTP rather than TCP.
>
> Angelo Caruso
> Xerox Corp.



More information about the Ipp mailing list