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

RE: [R3xx] Requirements Section "4.2 Simplicity and Stability" -- comparison with SOAP1.1.

From: David Ezell <David_E3@Verifone.Com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:10:24 -0500
Message-ID: <472E220BA79DD11186340060B06B38D9033AD2A9@tpantmail1.ssr.hp.com>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Wed 1/31/01 1:06 PM -0500 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>David Ezell wrote:
>>Further, SOAP1.1 
>>doesn't appear
>>to have much support for "layering".
>
>I am wondering what you mean by "not much support for layering" - is it
>because the layering model in SOAP is not explained well enough or is it
>that you believe it is not there? I would disagree with the latter by
>the way ;)

Sorry about the sloppy wording.  More accurately, the SOAP1.1 spec 
(to my reading) doesn't really address layering as it's being discussed[1].  
 
Honestly I could not possibly prove that it's "not there".  However,
I also could not prove that usable support for layering *is* there either.  

(N.B. it might be addressed directly in the SOAP1.1 *requirements*, just
not in the spec.)

Best regards,
David


[1] What constitutes "layering" and how to recognize it is under consideration 
by AMG.  It's not impossible that at the end of the day, layering as defined
by AMG and possibly adopted by the WG will be a fine fit for SOAP.  
Right now it doesn't seem so.
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 09:10:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:58 GMT