RE: Proposed resolution: issues 78, 16

 Matt,
 I feel that
 1) if we separate RPC from encoding, RPC section must not say
anything about other serialization roots and it should not
disallow other elements in the Body beside the RPC element
(because encoding may want to put the multirefs in there);
 2) if we keep RPC built on our encoding RPC should clearly state
that no additional serialization roots above the RPC element are
permitted for in this way we would clearly ban boxcarring.

                            Jacek Kopecky

                            Idoox
                            http://www.idoox.com/




On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Matt Long wrote:

 > 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 Sunday, 5 August 2001 16:25:54 UTC