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

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

From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:09:07 -0400
Message-ID: <3B5EE113.CB256072@east.Sun.COM>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
CC: John Ibbotson <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1 to John's proposal

I agree that RPC is not technically an extension, but I would
support its separation from the core SOAP specification 
for the very reasons that John identifies.

Cheers,

Chris

Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> 
>  John,
>  do you have any points for why you see RPC as an extension? As
> it is now, it doesn't even specify its own block (like
> <rpc:call>) in which the data would go. It puts the data in the
> body, that's why I see it as an application (I use this term to
> differentiate from the formal SOAP extensions).
>  I agree that RPC could be made into a proper extension, but then
> I don't see why this should be done.
>  I'm starting to thing that encoding really does belong to RPC
> more than to the core, but the divison into 1+2 and 3+4 would (at
> least in some people's minds) tie the encoding with RPC and
> nobody would use it apart. And it would tie our RPC with our
> encoding as well.
>  I also agree that our RPC is the major user of our encoding, so
> the tyings aren't necessarily that bad.
>  I hope you don't mind me cc'ing the list again.
>  Best regards,
> 
>                             Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                             Idoox
>                             http://www.idoox.com/
> 
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, John Ibbotson wrote:
> 
>  >
>  > Jacek,
>  > Yes, that's what I mean by an extension.
>  >
>  > However I see encoding as being linked to RPC (unless I've missed
>  > something) so I do see the split as 1+2 and 3+4 and as 2 separate
>  > documents.
>  >
>  > 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
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >                     Jacek Kopecky
>  >                     <jacek@idoox.c       To:     John Ibbotson/UK/IBM@IBMGB
>  >                     om>                  cc:     xml-dist-app@w3.org
>  >                                          Subject:     Re: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ?
>  >                     07/25/2001
>  >                     02:14 PM
>  >                     Please respond
>  >                     to Jacek
>  >                     Kopecky
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  John,
>  >  do you mean an extension in terms of the SOAP extension
>  > mechanism (headers, mustUnderstand, faulting)?
>  >  For example I believe encoding cannot be made into such an
>  > extension. And my opinion is that RPC is not an extension either,
>  > that it's an application (usage pattern with some rules) of SOAP.
>  >  I agree that the spec could be split into a few parts:
>  >  1) SOAP core
>  >  2) transport protocol bindings
>  >  3) data encoding
>  >  4) rules for RPC
>  >  But IMO RPC should be split apart from encoding. Also IMO
>  > bindings and encoding belong to the core document as optional
>  > normative(*) parts. Then the RPC document could be made into an
>  > optional normative part as well, with some text that clearly
>  > separates these parts from the core.
>  >  There is already a precedent for splitting - the XML Schema rec.
>  >  I tend to prefer one document for SOAP, but I'd probably have no
>  > problem with splitting SOAP into two documents - 1+2+3 and 4, I
>  > wouldn't like the split to be 1+2 and 3+4. It could also be 1+2
>  > and 3 and 4, but that's too many documents then, if we also
>  > release the abstract model and a primer. 8-)
>  >  Best regards,
>  >
>  >                             Jacek Kopecky
>  >
>  >                             Idoox
>  >                             http://www.idoox.com/
>  >
>  > (*) by an optional normative part I mean that it specifies
>  > something that needn't be used, but if used, this part is
>  > normative. If there is a better term for this or if this is an
>  > oxymoron (which depends on what normative exactly means here),
>  > please let me know. 8-)
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, John Ibbotson wrote:
>  >
>  >  > 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 11:09:14 GMT

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