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

RE: Proposed resolution: issues 78, 16

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 22:10:22 +0200 (CEST)
To: Matt Long <mlong@phalanxsys.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0108052153380.5689-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Matt,
 in SOAP/1.1, section 7 RPC is built upon the section 5 encoding,
which makes true your statement that the Body can contain one and
only one serialization root. And as far as the current wording
regarding the "root" attribute goes it does not require all the
other elements to be marked SOAP-ENC:root="0".
 On the other hand, if we take the approach of separating RPC and
encodings then RPC would not state nor care at all how many
serialization roots there are in the Body.
 Just to add a point for the separation - if we separate our RPC
from our encoding, we allow the use of other encodings together
with our RPC scheme. Also the fact that our encoding is
independent from and usable outside of our RPC would become
clearer.
 Your terms RPC-encoded and document-encoded seem to come from
the terminology of WSDL - the IDL language (not only) for SOAP.
If so, then IMHO they are only valid when describing how certain
constructs of WSDL should be interpreted. I don't think these
terms should be used to describe actual SOAP messages.

                            Jacek Kopecky

                            Idoox
                            http://www.idoox.com/




On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Matt Long wrote:

 > 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 Sunday, 5 August 2001 16:10:29 GMT

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