W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2002

Issue 33 : Proposed resolution

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:49:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB97D54B@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
To: "'Christopher Ferris (E-mail)'" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, "'David Fallside (E-mail)'" <fallside@us.ibm.com>, Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, "'Henrik Nielsen (E-mail)'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "'Hugo Haas (E-mail)'" <hugo@w3.org>, "'Mark A. Jones (E-mail) (E-mail)'" <jones@research.att.com>, "'Noah Mendelsohn (E-mail)'" <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, "'Oisin Ohurley (E-mail)'" <ohurley@iona.com>, "'Williams, Stuart'" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Yves Lafon (E-mail)'" <ylafon@w3.org>, "'Marc Hadley'" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "'Mountain, Highland M'" <highland.m.mountain@intel.com>, "'www-archive@w3.org'" <www-archive@w3.org>

[all - this is my proposed text for resolving issue #33; I wanted to get TBTF opinions on it before sending it to dist-app.  Is this adequate, do you think? --G]

Hi all:

During a not-so-recent TBTF conference call, I took an action to propose some resolution text for issue #33 [1], which arises out of our requirement [2] for modularity in the specification.  Here are the (belated) results.

Modularity at the Top
---------------------

The SOAP 1.2 processing model, combined with the ability to add arbitrary extensions to the protocol via the header mechanism, allows spec writers and implementors to cleanly implement pieces of additional functionality in an extremely modular fashion.  While it remains the case that some "best practices" documentation with regard to designing SOAP 1.2 "modules" would be useful, the spec itself has been carefully designed to allow for the composition of an almost infinite set of extensions authored by the W3C or any other parties.

Modularity at the Bottom
------------------------

The Binding Framework in section 5 of part 1 of the spec lays out an architecture for designing transport bindings which may provide for an arbitrary number of "binding features", which may be characterized as semantic extensions to the base SOAP protocol which are provided by the binding/transport.  Bindings may be authored for any existing or future underlying protocol, and the framework allows SOAP nodes to utilize arbitrary feaures of any such protocol.

It is the opinion of the TBTF that these factors provide for sufficient modularity in the design of SOAP 1.2 to satisfy the requirement, and that issue 33 should therefore be closed.

Thanks,
--Glen

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x33
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlp-reqs#z308
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 14:40:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:16 GMT