W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > August 2001

RE: Proposed resolution: issues 78, 16

From: Matt Long <mlong@phalanxsys.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 10:30:31 -0500
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004301c11a9e$e70dc9c0$34fff6d0@phalanxsys.com>
Does this proposal infer that distinctly different encodings and/or
symantics for multi-ref would  be applied to "rpc encoded" vs. "document
encoded" messages (and therefore the body of the rpc vs the headers of the
same message)?

Thx,

-Matt Long



> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of David Fallside
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 5:05 PM
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Proposed resolution: issues 78, 16
>
>
> Posted on behalf of Frank DeRose
> -----------------------------------
>
>
> The RPCTF has been discussing solutions to issue 78. I have
> proposed one
> solution to this issue [1]. Jacek has correctly pointed out
> one showstopper
> problem with my proposed solution, namely, that it assumes
> that the term
> "multi-ref element" is defined in Section 7. The term
> "multi-ref element"
> is defined in the default encoding in Section 5. Thus, if
> Section 7 assumes
> the definition of this term, a dependency is created between
> Section 7 and
> Section 5. Such a dependency is undesirable.
>
>
> In order to overcome this problem, the RPCTF is considering
> an alternative
> solution. The rough outline of this solution is as follows:
>
>
> 1.) Define a new "rpc" namespace.
>
>
> 2.) The "rpc" namespace will have one optional attribute,
> called "start."
> [As we flesh out the rpc convention, other attributes/elements may get
> added to the "rpc" namespace. For example, it might be
> possible to add a
> CorrelationId block to the "rpc" namespace.]
>
>
> 3.) The "start" attribute will be used on the SOAP Body element.
>
>
> 4.) If the "start" attribute is present on the Body element,
> its value is
> the qualified name of the RPC element
> (request/response/fault) inside the
> body. The purpose of the "start" attribute is to distinguish
> the starting
> point of processing. This is similar to the way the "start"
> parameter in
> the MIME multipart/related media type "points, via a
> Content-ID, to the
> body part that contains the object root."
>
>
> 5.) If the "start" attribute is not present, it MUST be
> assumed that the
> first syntactic element inside the body is the RPC element.
>
>
> This solution has a couple of advantages:
>
>
> 1.) It makes it possible to know which element in the Body is the RPC
> element without having to parse the entire Body first. [This was a
> disadvantage of using the "root" attribute from Section 5.6.]
>
>
> 2.) It can be used with any encoding.
>
>
> 3.) It does not interfere with other RPC conventions currently in use,
> since the "start" attribute would be defined only in the new "rpc"
> namespace.
>
>
> One problem with this solution is that it does not address
> the problem of
> determining "serialization roots" inside the SOAP Header.
>
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2001Ju
l/0139.html



............................................
David C. Fallside, IBM
Ext Ph: 530.477.7169
Int  Ph: 544.9665
fallside@us.ibm.com
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2001 11:30:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT