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

Re: A personal plea for peace and just a wee bit of patience (and I do mean a wee bit)

From: Constantine Plotnikov <cap@mail.novosoft.ru>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 15:32:18 +0600
Message-ID: <38C37B22.318ACACC@mail.novosoft.ru>
To: "Box, Don" <dbox@develop.com>
CC: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, Dave Winer <dave@userland.com>, SOAP@discuss.develop.com, "Tim O'Reilly (E-mail)" <tim@oreilly.com>, timbl@w3.org, tbray@textuality.com, ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us, Daniel.Veillard@w3.org, connolly@w3.org, eric@w3.org, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (E-mail)" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Steve Vinoski (E-mail)" <vinoski@iona.com>
> "Box, Don" wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Constantine Plotnikov [mailto:cap@mail.novosoft.ru]
> > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 6:36 AM
> > To: Dave Winer
> > Cc: Box, Don; SOAP@discuss.develop.com; Tim O'Reilly
> > (E-mail); timbl@w3.org; tbray@textuality.com;
> > ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us; Daniel.Veillard@w3.org;
> > connolly@w3.org; eric@w3.org; xml-dist-app@w3.org; Henrik
> > Frystyk Nielsen (E-mail); Steve Vinoski (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: A personal plea for peace and just a wee bit of
> > patience (and I do mean a wee bit)
> >
> >
> > "Box, Don" wrote:
> > >
> > > No one had concrete criticisms of the SOAP serialization
> > format. That does
> > > not mean it is perfect. However, it means that no one who
> > has looked at the
> > > spec has any credible technical show-stoppers that they are
> > willing to share
> > > in an open forum.
> > >
> > I personally like XMI 1.1 serialization algorithm more.
> Many of us have familiar at XMI and MOF in general. However, I believe
> the OMG is in the process of revamping the XMI encoding, which was
> done prior to namespaces and schema language. One of my personal goals
> is to make obvious how XMI fits into this picture.

I have not specified what I like in XMI and what is looking strange 
in SOAP from my point of view. I'm sure that I do not understand 
the idea in foundation of SOAP serialization. The SOAP algorithm
looks complicated from my current understanding of what is it.

Before SOAP, I have seen several algorithms (I even reinvented 
the one during my days at university). Many of them have a similar 

1. When reference to object is writen, 
a. if object is not started to be serialized, its content started 
to be written and mapping between object reference and identifier is 
b. if object is started to be serialized (it is not important whether 
finished or not), only reference is written using identifier from

// serialization

class SeralizationInfo
  map<Object, id> map;
  int lastId;
  Values<boolean, int> get(Object)

void writeSimpleAttributes(Object o)
  // not important for this message

void write_objects(SeralizationInfo si, Object o)
  int id;
  boolean firstTime;
  (firstTime, id) = si.get(o);
    startObject(id)  // "<" <Class(o)> "id=\"id"<id>"\">"
    for each reference r
       startField(r.name)  // "<" <r.name> ">"
       writeObject(si, r.value);    
       endField(r.name)   // "</" <r.value> ">"
    endObject(p);    // "</" <Class(o)>\">"
    writeReference(id)  // "<" <Class(o)> "href=\"id"<id>"\"/>"

This is very simplified version that does not contains any 
optimizations. The traffic can be greatly reduced if
some trick are applied.

The advantage of this algorithm that there is a very little 
difference between handling of shared and not shared objects. 

It also should be noted when object is serialized, the only one 
one element will present in any case, whether it contains shared 
objects or not.

AFAIU In SOAP encoder should know by some way wherether object 
is shared or not ahead of serialization time. I'm interested why 
this design decision was made.

Received on Monday, 6 March 2000 04:32:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:09 UTC