W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2004

RE: Describing MTOM/XOP in WSDL

From: DOCSCOTTY FREILE <drscott@wpains.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 14:46:55 -0500
To: gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <BAY9-F60wcrRhsIycpI0003b6a3@hotmail.com>

hi
looks fine, don't get stalled on the little stuff.
docscotty



WORLDWIDE PUBLIC ACCESS INTERNET NEWS SERVICES INC.  .e911SOS.COM 
RAWPRESS.COM
PARROTNEWS.COM SCOTTY DRSCOTT@WPAINS.COM
PO BOX 1719 SPLENDORA ,TX 77372
a 501c3 Non=profit Organization organized for Educational,News,Information, 
and Humanitarian purposes with any and all income or gifts going towards the 
furtherance of our mission of social justice.





>From: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
>To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>CC: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>Subject: Describing MTOM/XOP in WSDL
>Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 08:53:45 -0400
>
>
>
>Greetings XMLPers!
>
>At our recent WSDL face-to-face, we discussed how users would use WSDL
>2.0 to describe services which support or require the MTOM/XOP
>optimization with SOAP/HTTP.
>
>Since MTOM, and more importantly the HTTP Transmission Optimization
>Feature (defined in [1]), are well-defined features per the SOAP
>extensibility model, and since WSDL 2.0 already has syntax for
>expressing supported or required features, we came to the conclusion
>that we would not add any new syntax to WSDL 2.0 specifically for
>MTOM/XOP use.
>
>I sent the following to the WSDL group earlier today:
>
>-------
>In fulfillment of my action item from the F2F, the following snippet in
>our current syntax seems to be all you would need to ensure that the
>HTTP Transmission Optimization Feature described in [1] is utilized:
>
><feature uri="http://www.w3.org/2003/06/soap/features/http-optimization"
>          required="true"/>
>
>This would go in your SOAP binding.  If your underlying protocol binding
>did not support this feature, you'd get a fault.  Otherwise, you'd get
>MTOM/XOP serialized messages.
>
>Specifying the feature with required="false" would indicate to a user
>that MTOM/XOP serialization is supported by the service, but not
>required.
>-------
>
>We wanted to swing this by you folks to see if you had any
>comments/thoughts on the subject, and to make sure that you felt this
>was a correct solution.  Does this seem the right thing to you?
>
>Thanks,
>--Glen
>
>[1]
>http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/3/06/Attachments/OptimizationMechanism.h
>tml
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2004 15:47:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:31 GMT