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

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

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:00:15 +0200 (CEST)
To: John Ibbotson <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107251859010.1704-100000@mail.idoox.com>
+1 with Marc's change. I wasn't against visibly removing RPC from
the core of SOAP, I just didn't like the term "extension" used
here. 8-)

                            Jacek Kopecky

                            Idoox
                            http://www.idoox.com/




On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Marc Hadley wrote:

 > +1 for John's proposal. I think I'd prefer to replace "architected
 > extension" with "a set of rules/conventions" to prevent confusion with
 > SOAP header extensions which I don't think really play a part in the RPC
 > conventions and encoding rules.
 >
 > Marc.
 >
 > 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
 >
 > --
 > Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
 > Tel: +44 1252 423740
 > Int: x23740
 >
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 13:07:16 GMT

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