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

RE: [SOAP] soap question

From: Orchard, David <dorchard@jamcracker.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:29:03 -0500
Message-ID: <4031EFAE2F3BD411B08C000629DE91BB04F020E7@jx01.ummail.com>
To: Oisin Hurley <ohurley@iona.com>, "Orchard, David" <dorchard@jamcracker.com>, dick@8760.com, XP-PUBLIC <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I, and many people I have talked to, would like the scenario of sending
"objects" as part of or related to an XP message.  If that then means that
the XP specification then has to do some work to define the relationships -
addressing, encoding, by-value/by-reference - as a framework for object
passing, so beit.  Nobody ever said our job was to do trivial things.  We
could have just changed the SOAP namespace values to w3.org/* and changed
the namespace identifiers from soapenv to xpenv.  

My guess is that standardized sending objects with XP is the single biggest
requirement that people would like on top of SOAP.  Probably why it was (one
of?) the first Note related to SOAP submitted to the W3C.  

I don't agree that we have to define an object model for XP.  We can safely
leave the objects opaque.  We would have to define a mechanism for
referencing and/or containing an object model. There is a Note before the
W3C on exactly how to do this, sans object model.  Therefore it is proven
that passing opaque objects can be defined without a defined object model.  

Dave Orchard
XML Architect
Jamcracker Inc.,    19000 Homestead Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014
p: 408.864.5118     m: 604.908.8425    f: 408.725.4310

Named to Red Herring's list of 100 Most Important Companies:
www.redherring.com/mag/issue79/herring100/jamcracker.html




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oisin Hurley [mailto:ohurley@iona.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 2:47 PM
> To: Orchard, David; dick@8760.com; XP-PUBLIC
> Subject: RE: [SOAP] soap question
> 
> 
> <dick b>
> Another use case from the SOAP list indicating that XP may 
> need to support
> "Objects" as payloads.
> I don't believe XP has a use case for passing objects, should this be
> considered a valid use case for XP?
> </dick b>
> 
> <dave o> Yes, consider it a use-case. </dave o>
> 
> Hmm, if you want to consider this a use-case, then you will 
> have to address
> the fact that there
> is no object model in XP. Given this non-trivial issue, I 
> would suggest that
> this not be included
> as a use case. It is more appropriate to say that sending 'objects'
> (whatever they are :) in XP
> messages is an implementation language specific XML 
> serialization issue.
> 
>  cheers
>   --oh
> 
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2001 18:30:49 GMT

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