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

RE: Protocol Bindings

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:25:21 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D0297CDF3@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Williams Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

I actually don't think it matters whether our spec is packaged in one or
two documents. What to me is the important thing is the scope of the
binding. 

I absolutely agree with the scope of the BEEP binding in that it talks
exactly about how BEEP core is mapped to TCP and how BEEP core may take
advantage of TCP features with an eye for performance. Note that BEEP
defines much more than SOAP core does (everything that relates to
channels etc) so it is to be anticipated that their binding is much
bigger.

As an example, you can find a SOAP-RP/DIME binding to TCP at

  http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/xml_wsspecs/soap-rp/default.html#N0700

Henrik

>Do you think we should be doing something similar?
>
>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.
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 16:58:37 GMT

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