W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > July 2000

Re: announce: WorldOS 0.2

From: Lucas Gonze <lucas@gonze.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 16:10:14 -0400 (EDT)
To: Oismn Hurley <ohurley_no@spam_iona.com>
cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10007081504220.775-100000@gonze.com>
Hi Oismn,

> SOAP is intended to represent data - message types, invocation frames,
> context information, etc. It not intended to describe connection semantics,
> fragmentation, channel management and the like. This area is the prerogative
> of the protocol that carries the SOAP envelope. Hence the datatyping rather
> than the semantics issue - it's there by design.

If I understand this right, the distinction is that wOS is a transport
protocol, and SOAP is an application protocol.

I believe that a trivial connector message that would work would be:

<msg>
  <protocol>
     <function>soap connector</function>
  </protocol>
  <funcdata>
    soap envelope
  </funcdata>
</msg>

Datatypes in wOS are used in derived application protocols, so this draws 
a nice clear line between the two protocols.  (There is some duplicate
functionality, particularly in the RPC mechanism.)

The only real conflict is at the application level, between the wOS-based
peer networking protocol and SOAP.  I wonder about ways to connect the
two?  Maybe it would just require adding push and pop elements to
msg->funcdata. Since they wouldn't need to interact with the soap
envelope, the final message would be:

<msg>
  <protocol>
     <function>soap connector</function>
  </protocol>
  <funcdata>
    soap envelope
    <push/>
    <pop/>
  </funcdata>
</msg>

This would supply correlation fairly neatly.  The connector would unpack
the state, find the relevant handler, and send it the newly arrived
message.

A nice benefit of using wOS to transport SOAP is that the peer networking
functionality already exists.  This might be a low-pain way to move away
from http.  ...just integrate the wOS org.worldos.nyo package with the
soap manager.

> Cross version compatibility I think is catered for -- the syntax is
> extensible, provided it fits within the framework of the envelope, header
> and body elements. I think this is acceptable - if interoperability is a
> goal, which it is for sure with SOAP, then it is important to preserve some
> kind of basic structure.

SOAP has progressed pretty far since I started wOS, particularly in the
use of namespaces. Either way I'd rather avoid spending time on any kind
of religious war.

Thanks for your detailed response, Oismn.

- Lucas
Received on Saturday, 8 July 2000 16:16:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:56 GMT