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

Re: issue 78

From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:40:49 -0400
Message-ID: <3B2AAB11.24E1254B@east.sun.com>
To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
CC: Frank DeRose <frankd@tibco.com>, Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1

Doug Davis wrote:
> 
> I agree that vague areas of the spec should be cleared up.
> In this case though, there are lots of things that are not part
> of the core spec.   Digital Signature isn't part of the core spec
> but is allowable, right?  I see boxcarring as the same type
> of thing in that the spec isn't going to talk about it (except
> to say it isn't going to talk about it  8-)  but that doesn't mean
> it can't be done - they're just not going to tell us how to do
> it.  You're equating "not part of the core spec" with "not
> allowed" and I don't think they're the same thing. When the
> spec disallows something a "MUST NOT" is used.
> -Dug
> 
> "Frank DeRose" <frankd@tibco.com>@w3.org on 06/15/2001 06:53:12 PM
> 
> Sent by:  xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> 
> To:   Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Jean-Jacques Moreau"
>       <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
> cc:   <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> Subject:  RE: issue 78
> 
> Doug,
> 
> The passage you refer to reads:
> 
> "A major design goal for SOAP is simplicity and extensibility. This means
> that there are several features from traditional messaging systems and
> distributed object systems that are not part of the core SOAP
> specification.
> Such features include
> 
> ...
> 
> Boxcarring or batching of messages"
> 
> This seems to me just to say that boxcarring is not part of the core SOAP
> specification. How, then, do you conclude that the SOAP spec allows
> boxcarring? My own interpretation of this passage was that the spec did NOT
> allow boxcarring.
> 
> So, I draw the following conclusions:
> 
> 1.) The fact that two readers can conclude from the same passage that
> boxcarring is allowed (Doug) or not allowed (me) seems to be positive
> evidence that the spec is vague (needs to be rewritten) on this point.
> 2.) The WG needs to decide whether boxcarring should or should not be
> allowed. My own personal opinion is that it should not be allowed (the S in
> SOAP stands for "Simple"). But, if the WG decides that it should be
> allowed,
> the spec should be changed to describe explicitly how boxcarring should be
> performed. In particular, as Doug points out, some convention for handling
> faults should be supplied.
> 3.) If the WG decides that it wants boxcarring, then my proposed rewriting
> of Section 7.1 obviously won't do.
> 
> F
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 3:55 AM
> > To: Jean-Jacques Moreau
> > Cc: Frank DeRose; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: issue 78
> >
> >
> > Yes it does allow it, but it says that it isn't going to
> > talk about it [1] (look for boxcarring).  I believe it is
> > valid to put multiple RPC calls in the body (each one being
> > its own body element) - if fact you can even put each RPC
> > as a separate header - there are lots of ways to do it.
> > But, the spec doesn't tell you how to handle things like
> > faults (or multiple faults) or rollback if the 3rd rpc
> > fails.  So, if someone wants to do this it would be up
> > to them to decide how these issues are handled - as long
> > as they conform to the spec.
> >
> > -Dug
> >
> > [1]
> > http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/06/01/xmlp-soap-02.html#_Toc478383487
> >
> >
> >
> > "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>@w3.org on 06/15/2001 03:41:58
> > AM
> >
> > Sent by:  xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> >
> >
> > To:   Frank DeRose <frankd@tibco.com>
> > cc:   xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject:  Re: issue 78
> >
> >
> >
> > Frank,
> >
> > Am I missing something obvious, or does the spec allow you to have two
> RPC
> > requests within a single SOAP message? (I am also wondering why the usual
> > QName+actor dispatching mechanism does not work here.)
> >
> > BTW, in your example, why couldn't "id1" be a header?
> >
> > Frank DeRose wrote:
> >
> > > <SOAP-ENV:Body
> > > SOAP-ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"/>
> > >   <SOAP-ENC:int id="i1" SOAP-ENC:root='0'>34.5</SOAP-ENC:int>
> > >   <m:GetLastTradePriceResponse xmlns:m="Some-URI">
> > >     <PriceAndVolume>
> > >       <LastTradePrice href="#i1"/>
> > >       <DayVolume>10000</DayVolume>
> > >     </PriceAndVolume>
> > >   </m:GetLastTradePriceResponse>
> > > </SOAP-ENV:Body>
> >
> > Jean-Jacques.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 20:45:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT