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

Re: RPC issue: multiple body blocks

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:16:13 -0700
To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20010817141613.C14190@mnot.net>

Yeah, boxcarring is nifty, but out of scope for us, IIRC. Another RPC
effort can tackle it, IMHO. Otherwise, we need to explicitly support
it, and deal with all of the headaches it incurs...

Cheers,



On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 05:07:29PM -0400, Doug Davis wrote:
> So you want to disallow boxcarring if sec. 7 is used.  It'll still be ok
> to do boxcarring if some other RPC style is defined, right?
> -Dug
> 
> 
> Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>@w3.org on 08/17/2001 05:02:44 PM
> 
> Sent by:  xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> 
> 
> To:   XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> cc:
> Subject:  RPC issue: multiple body blocks
> 
> 
> 
> Reading section 7.1, it's hinted that RPC messages are modeled as a
> single struct in the message (note the use of 'single').
> 
> However, I don't see anything explicitly prohibiting multiple body
> blocks in a RPC message.
> 
> While common sense dictates that RPC with multiple body blocks isn't
> too useful, SOAP does allow them in the definition of a body, and RPC
> doesn't give any solid guidance.
> 
> I'd be more comfortable if we ruled out more than one
> child of the body when the RPC convention is in use, except when a
> Fault is present, of course.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham
> http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
 
Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 17:16:14 GMT

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