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

RE: Protocol Bindings

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:46:24 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192542@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Do you think we should be doing something similar?

I think that was implicit... yes!

I like the way this links in the key concepts from beep of sessions (and
operations on sessions), peer roles, message exchange and preservation of
channel characteristics.

We have at least concepts of messages, senders and receiver. We also speak
of concepts like message exchange patterns. I think we're less clear about
what we expect of the underlying communication channel. Something simlarly
crisp about SOAP transport bindings would be good (I think).

Regards

Stuart

> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> "Williams, Stuart" wrote:
> 
> > I was recently referred to section 2.5 of the Beep Core spec. It's an
> > enviably concise and compact definition of what BEEP expects of a
mapping to
> > a particular transport service.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Stuart
> > [1] http://beepcore.org/beepcore/rfc3080.jsp#transport.mapping
> 
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 13:46:41 GMT

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