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

RE: !-Re: ebXML Abandons SOAP

From: James Snell <jmsnell@intesolv.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 15:31:39 -0700
Message-ID: <712324ACD27BD011B17C0080AD17D38A1B5F4D@IBS_10>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Stepping back and taking a look at both, however, it is quite clear that
although the SOAP v1.1 specification is capable of being used for document
exchange, it falls short of many of the architecture requirements that the
ebXML initiative addresses... namely, security and the ability to handle
large chunks of binary data efficiently without base64 encoding.  These are
the same standard arguments that we've heard for quite some time about SOAP,
and they will not go away until the specification is either updated to
support them, or is replaced by a new XP that gives us both a simple
Envelope architecture  and a comprehensive packaging and security

I can definitely understand the ebXML groups position on this, and would
agree with their position to an extent.  The base SOAP specification is just
not adequate.  Perhaps taken together with the SOAP MIME Packaging proposal
published by Satish and John, along with the BizTalk document specification
or something similar, then SOAP would fit the bill.  *Perhaps* if either of
these were pushed forward as addendums to the SOAP specification proposal,
SOAP would become more attractive to the document messaging community?  Just
a thought... (although, perhaps not a very good one ;-) ...)

For the record, I have to say that I definitely do not agree with the
sentiment that ebXML and SOAP are competitors.  As has been pointed out,
they grew out of two distinctly different problem spaces and have been
designed to address the specific requirements of each space.  I do not
believe that the two are wholly incompatible though, and I think that
through the proper cooperation between members of both camps, some joint
solution can be worked out that will decide once and for all if the two can
be married or not.

- James Snell

-----Original Message-----
From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Andrew Layman
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 11:44 AM
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: RE: !-Re: ebXML Abandons SOAP

Thank you for your clarifying explanation.  During the intervening year
since ebXML began to investigate candidate technologies there have been
several important changes that ebXML might want to consider.  In particular,
the SOAP specification that is used by most implementors is not the 0.9
version that ebXML looked at but the 1.1 version submitted to the W3C on May
8, 2000 and available at http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/. 

This, not the 0.9 version, is the one submitted to the W3C by Ariba, Inc.,
Commerce One, Inc., Compaq Computer Corporation, DevelopMentor, Inc.,
Hewlett Packard Company, International Business Machines Corporation, IONA
Technologies, Lotus Development Corporation, Microsoft Corporation
SAP AG, and UserLand Software Inc. 

This 1.1 specification is not a large technical change from 0.9 or 1.0, but
does substantially improve the clarity of the explanations in the document.
In particular, it makes it clear that the SOAP specification addresses not
just RMC but also general business document exchange.
Received on Monday, 9 October 2000 18:37:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:10 UTC