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: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 09:04:35 -0500
To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, "'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek@idoox.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, <xml-dist-app-request@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002201c11cee$6561ffc0$34fff6d0@phalanxsys.com>
In addendum...

Section 7 is silent on any requirement of the number of serialization roots
in an rpc encoded message, i.e., whether more than one is
(allowed|disallowed) or ignored if more than one exists excluding the method
wrapper element.  It seems (to me) that some clarification in Sec 7 needs to
occur regarding whether:
1) multiple serialization roots in rpc encoded messages are allowed.
	a) If allowed (are they ignored) with the exception of the method wrapper
element
	b) If not allowed should the message should be faulted.

Thx,

-Matt


> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Matt Long
> Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 7:02 AM
> To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com; 'Jacek Kopecky'
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org; xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed resolution: issues 78, 16
>
>
> Hi Noah,
>
> Is it true that in a rpc encoded message that the Body can
> contain one and
> only one serialization root, i.e., the method wrapper
> element?  If not true,
> then is the message actually "document encoded" and not "rpc
> encoded" ?  If
> this is true (one serialization root for rpc), then does this
> require all
> non-serialization roots be marked with SOAP-ENC:root="0"?
>
> Thx,
>
> -Matt
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com [mailto:Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 9:46 PM
> > To: Jacek Kopecky
> > Cc: mlong@phalanxsys.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org;
> > xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Proposed resolution: issues 78, 16
> >
> >
> > Jacek writes:
> >
> > >>  RPC needs to point to the RPC element while
> > >> an encoding wants to mark serialization
> > >> root(s).
> >
> > +1.  This is exactly the right distinction between the two.
> > Again, I'm
> > still not 100 percent sure I'm ready to endorse any
> > particular approach,
> > but I think the distinction in the potential needs is just
> > right.   For
> > better or worse, the chapter 5 encoding provides a graph data
> > model.  One
> > of its uses is for RPC, but there are other potential uses.
>  The root
> > attribute distinguishes certain nodes in the graphs.  Chapter
> > 7 provides
> > for remote procedure call:  the proposed START tag marks the
> > element that
> > identifies the service to be called, I think.  I wonder
> > whether something
> > like METHOD= or CALL= might be more suggestive than START?
> > I'm not sure
> > we are really starting anything, so much as distinguishing
> > the element
> > that identifies the call to be attempted.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice:
> > 1-617-693-4036
> > Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax:
> 1-617-693-8676
> > One Rogers Street
> > Cambridge, MA 02142
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> >
> >
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2001 10:04:40 GMT

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