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

Re: infoset and bindings

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 17:06:18 -0700
To: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010718170617.D26107@mnot.net>
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 03:29:04PM -0400, Mark Jones wrote:
> I think of sending the message from the sender's perspective in the
> following way:
> 
>  1) The sender knows the basic content to be delivered and any
>     ancillary sender-specified services.  (Delivery paths may
>     also invisibly provide other "services" en route that are
>     transparent to the sender.)
> 
>  2) The sender also determines an overall messaging pattern
>     (fire-and-forget, request-response, etc.) from its
>     perspective.
> 
>  3) The sender must also construct some delivery plan that is
>     consistent with 1) and 2).  The sender may be hardwired or use
>     meta-data (obtained via some unspecified mechanism) to determine
>     this delivery plan.  The sender may completely determine the
>     routing path, protocols, etc., for all hops or its plan may
>     include the delegation of some of these decisions to routing
>     intermediaries, but nonetheless it has a delivery plan.  (In
>     particular, the next hop of the plan must be concretely determined
>     at the sender and each intermediary.)
> 
> An infoset representation of the message at any given point along
> the message path includes all of the above information that is still
> required for subsequent delivery and processing.

This approach, as you say, requires that all information necessary to
characterize the message and its path be resident in the infoset. I
don't think this is true for all use cases of SOAP, and would view
this as an unneccessary contstraint of SOAP.

Cheers,



-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 20:06:19 GMT

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