W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2001

RE: TBTF text for f2f

From: Mountain, Highland M <highland.m.mountain@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:36:35 -0800
Message-ID: <ED492E16A0B8D311AC490090276D20840FA87AC0@FMSMSX31>
To: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Williams, Stuart"<skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Mountain, Highland M"<highland.m.mountain@intel.com>, "Noah Mendelsohn (E-mail)"<Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, "David Fallside (E-mail)"<fallside@us.ibm.com>, "Christopher Ferris (E-mail)"<chris.ferris@sun.com>, "Glen Daniels (E-mail)"<gdaniels@macromedia.com>, "Hugo Haas (E-mail)" <hugo@w3.org>, "Yves Lafon (E-mail)" <ylafon@w3.org>, "Oisin Ohurley (E-mail)"<ohurley@iona.com>, "Marc. Hadley (E-mail)" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Mark A. Jones (E-mail) (E-mail)" <jones@research.att.com>
Cc: "'www-archive@w3.org'" <www-archive@w3.org>
The original issue was the scope of our ed note (calling out which issues
are still open for discussion in the TBTF).  I would not agree with just
discussing the "binding specification" statement with dist-app, unless we
start discussing all the core issues of the TBTF on dist-app.  

I see the content needing closure within the TBTF as:

>>>
Features are the modular components from which the contract between SOAP
nodes and the bindings they support are formed. A binding specification
details how the services of the underlying protocol are used to honor the
contract formed by the declaration of features supported by the binding
being specified.

The combination of the SOAP extensibility model and the SOAP binding
framework provides some flexibility in the way that particular features can
be expressed: They can be expressed entirely within the SOAP envelope (as
blocks), outside the envelope (typically in a manner that is specific to the
underlying protocol), or as a combination of such expressions. It is up to
the communicating nodes to decide how best to express particular features;
often when a binding-level implementation for a particular feature is
available, utilizing it when appropriate will provide for optimized
processing.

Editors note: some discussion continues on how best to represent the balance
of responsibility between binding specifications in particular, vs. other
software at the SOAP node, when dealing with features that are represented
entirely within the SOAP envelope. The paragraph above may need some
additional work to clarify.
>>>

Thus the ed note should refer to the above 2 paragraphs and not just the one
above.    


As a side note, in reference to Stu's thoughts and one of my original
comments, it appears that bindings and binding specifications are 2 separate
documents.    Examples should be provided to illustrate a binding and a
binding specification, to clearly call out the differences in the two
documents and their usage.  Providing just an HTTP Binding Specification,
would be incomplete, and would not fully illustrate what our framework
provides(IMHO).  By saying this, I am not advocating this approach(yet), but
asking for more clarity if we do go this route.  (Glen - Are you planning on
covering such examples in your ftf presentation?)



-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:52 AM
To: Williams, Stuart; Mountain, Highland M; Noah Mendelsohn (E-mail);
David Fallside (E-mail); Christopher Ferris (E-mail); Glen Daniels
(E-mail); Hugo Haas (E-mail); Yves Lafon (E-mail); Oisin Ohurley
(E-mail); Marc. Hadley (E-mail); Mark A. Jones (E-mail) (E-mail)
Subject: RE: TBTF text for f2f



I would tend to agree with this.

Should this not be discussed on xml-dist-app?

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Williams, Stuart [mailto:skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 09:32
>To: 'Mountain, Highland M'; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Noah 
>Mendelsohn (E-mail); David Fallside (E-mail); Christopher 
>Ferris (E-mail); Glen Daniels (E-mail); Williams, Stuart; 
>Christopher Ferris (E-mail); Hugo Haas (E-mail); Yves Lafon 
>(E-mail); Oisin Ohurley (E-mail); Marc. Hadley (E-mail); Mark 
>A. Jones (E-mail) (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: TBTF text for f2f
>
>
>Highland,
>
>I see the statement as limiting the scope of a binding 
>specification to those features that the combination of the 
>binding and the underlying protocol provide. 'Thin' bindings 
>may just expose the features of the underlying protocol, 
>'fatter' bindings may introduce mechanisms of their own.
>
>I do think it right that a binding specification be scoped 
>down to the things that binding/underlying protocol 
>combination collectively provide.
>
>I also don't see the circularity you refer to. As I understand 
>it the contract that a binding provides to the local SOAP 
>processor is modular. The components of that contract are the 
>various features that the binding claims to support. The 
>various feature specifications define the semantics of that 
>feature (non-normatively in terms of property sets) and the 
>behaviour of the feature in the abstract. One of the jobs of a 
>binding specification is then to detail how the binding 
>honours the contract it makes with the local SOAP processor by 
>declaring that it provides a particular feature.
>
>So... the various feature specification define components of 
>the contract between a local SOAP processor and a binding. A 
>binding declares what features it supports and how (the 
>concrete mechanisms) it meets the contract implied by its 
>support of a given feature.
>
>I hope this helps... of course its only how I think about it.
>
>Regards
>
>Stuart
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mountain, Highland M [mailto:highland.m.mountain@intel.com]
>> Sent: 21 November 2001 16:59
>> To: 'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'; Mountain, Highland M; Noah Mendelsohn 
>> (E-mail); David Fallside (E-mail); Christopher Ferris (E-mail); Glen 
>> Daniels (E-mail); Stuart' 'Williams (E-mail); Christopher Ferris 
>> (E-mail); Hugo Haas (E-mail); Yves Lafon (E-mail); Oisin Ohurley 
>> (E-mail); Marc. Hadley (E-mail); Mark A. Jones (E-mail) (E-mail)
>> Subject: RE: TBTF text for f2f
>> 
>> 
>> Henrik,
>> 
>> This statement limits the scope of a binding specification to those
>features
>> which are provided by the underlying transport protocol.  It also 
>> seems to be a somewhat circular statement in that it speaks of what 
>> the "binding specification" captures and then references the binding 
>> being specified as something which needs to be honored.  Are the 
>> binding specification and
>the
>> binding being specified 2 different things?
>> 
>> Highland
>> 
>>  A binding specification details how the services of the underlying
>protocol
>> are used to honor the contract formed by the declaration of features 
>> supported by the binding being specified.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 9:47 AM
>> To: Mountain, Highland M; Noah Mendelsohn (E-mail); David Fallside 
>> (E-mail); Christopher Ferris (E-mail); Glen Daniels 
>(E-mail); Stuart' 
>> 'Williams (E-mail); Christopher Ferris (E-mail); Hugo Haas (E-mail); 
>> Yves Lafon (E-mail); Oisin Ohurley (E-mail); Marc. Hadley (E-mail); 
>> Mark A. Jones (E-mail) (E-mail)
>> Subject: RE: TBTF text for f2f
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Could you please clarify what the issue is regarding this paragraph?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Henrik
>> 
>> >During the last TBTF con-call it was my understanding that the
>> >"binding specification details" statement(first paragraph 
>> >below) was also an issue, and the group planned to discuss the 
>> >text further. That being the case, the ed note should read the 
>> >2 above paragraphs, not the paragraph above.  
>> 
>
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 14:36:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:14 GMT