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

Re: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ?

From: Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 06:26:55 -0700
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6811F0E1.B9585F90-ON88256A94.00547E37@raleigh.ibm.com>
+2.
Many of the folks in vertical domains that I work with have either defined
their own
payloads (business docs) or are currently doing this. They are not
specifically
interested in RPC but document messaging. Thus, one reason for emerging
interest in ebXML Messaging, which defines a SOAP+SWA Profile.

It would do all of us good to formally separate the exchange models from
the core (extensible) enveloping.

Thanks.
Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



"John Ibbotson" <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>@w3.org on 07/25/2001 03:33:01 AM

Sent by:  xml-dist-app-request@w3.org


To:   xml-dist-app@w3.org
cc:
Subject:  RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ?



Should RPC be part of the core SOAP specification or an architected
extension ?

I believe the SOAP 1.1 specification confused matters by including sections
on RPC and encoding. Readers of the specification came to the incorrect
conclusion that SOAP was inextricably linked to RPC. As Henrik pointed out
inthe early days of the WG, SOAP is really only a single way message with
RPC being a convention for linking two single way messages into a
request/response pair together with an encoding mechanism. By removing  RPC
from the core specification and placing it into a separate extension, we
have the opportunity to correct the confusion that I believe originates
from SOAP 1.1.

There is a second reason for removing RPC from the core specification.
There is a large body of users (the EDI community via ebXML) for whom RPC
is not the preferred invocation mechanism. They operate with a document
exchange model which may include boxcarring of business documents in a
single message each of which is of equal processing importance. If the WG
perpetuates the perceived importance of RPC by including it in the core
specification rather than viewing it as an extension, then acceptance of
SOAP in some communities may be diminished.

Comments please,
John

XML Technology and Messaging,
IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park,
Winchester, SO21 2JN

Tel: (work) +44 (0)1962 815188        (home) +44 (0)1722 781271
Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898
Notes Id: John Ibbotson/UK/IBM
email: john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 09:27:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT