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

RE: Protocol Bindings

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 16:44:33 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192520@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> >> What you state here is different from what you stated in the previous
> >> mail. Either the "purpose of an XML Protocol Binding is to provide 
> >> rules for the transfer of XML Protocol messages over some specific 
> >> underlying protocol" or "the purpose of a protocol binding IS to 
> >> describe how to make use of a particular underlying protocol to 
> >> transfer XMLP/SOAP messages."
> >
> >Personally I think that both formulations say the same thing. 
> >If the second communicates my intend more clearly to you,  that's great.
> 
> There is a very big difference--it is not just a formulation problem and
> we must have agreement on which one before we can effectively talk about
> what bindings can do and cannot do. From an architectural consistency
> point of view I don't think we have a choice but to use the latter.

I accept that you perceive there to be a big difference in these two
statements. My perception is different.

That said, I am perfectly happy that we continue discussion on the basis of
the latter formulation... ie.

"The purpose of a protocol binding IS to describe how to make use of a
particular underlying protocol to transfer XMLP/SOAP messages."

> When you say that SOAP or the SOAP binding defines the *transfer* then
> what you are saying is that SOAP does routing 

NO... I am not saying any such thing... you are infering that that is what I
am saying.

> - in order for SOAP to
> transfer a message it has to know where it is going. The reason why I
> keep saying that SOAP doesn't do routing is that some routing (or
> endpoint identification) mechanism is necessary in order to transfer
> messages but SOAP doesn't define that and neither does the binding.

Ok... I think I'm *beginning* to see why routing keeps comming back into the
discussion, although note, I is not something that I brought into this
thread.

I think that I still missing your point:

1) SOAP does do routing.
   I think we've been aware of that for quite a while.

2) Bindings don't define routing.
   Yes I agreed, I don't think they should and I have never suggested
otherwise.

Conclusion: SOAP message routing remains undefined!

> The binding is exactly what it sounds like - a gluing mechanism between
> SOAP and whatever underlying protocol.

Yes... agreed.

> There should be no additional
> semantics defined by the binding because the places where we add
> semantics is either as SOAP extensions or as underlying protocols.

That may be a point of difference.

> Semantics defined by the binding is not defined as part of underlying
> protocols and not defined within the extensibility mechanism of SOAP. In
> other words we have no good way to talk about it in terms of processing
> model, extensibility model etc. 
> 
> Henrik

Stuart
Received on Friday, 6 July 2001 11:44:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:02 GMT