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

Re: RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory? (fwd)

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 18:24:29 -0000
Message-ID: <009c01c167b9$72755f70$977ba8c0@greyarea>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, <bprice@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

The whole point of SOAP Encoding initially was that because we didn't have a
schema language we needed to start from some other type system. SOAP Section
5 ( as it was known at that time ) gave us some standard rules for what to
do when starting from a programmatic type system like C++ or Java. At the
time this was useful.

We now know a lot more about XML than we did in 1998/1999. And we now have a
schema language. So I would argue that even in the 'RPC' case two parties
could just agree what the XML is going to look like and be done.

Now, is there benefit to having a 'standard' encoding style? I don't know.
It doesn't seem like much of a burden to me to just look at what a given
endpoint expects and what it returns and then code for it. If I have a
schema description I can probably generate the code from that. But I may be
in a minority here by thinking that what goes on the wire is the place to
start rather than starting with code...



----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
Cc: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>; "Jacek Kopecky"
<jacek@systinet.com>; <bprice@us.ibm.com>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory? (fwd)

> On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
> > To: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
> > Cc: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>; <bprice@us.ibm.com>;
> > <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 3:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory? (fwd)
> >
> >
> > <SNIP>Long version</SNIP>
> >
> > > Short version: "what is SOAP-encoding for? what is it *not* for?"
> >
> > Dan,
> >
> > There are many people, myself included, that do not think that an
> > schema is necessary for many iteractions. Two parties just need to agree
> > what the XML is going to look like for a given exchange.
> > This will probably be defined in a schema of some sort. There is no need
> > any 'standard' data encoding in many of these cases. In fact, I would go
> > far as to say we only need a 'standard' encoding for cases where two
> > cannot agree by defining a schema.
> >
> > Martin
> So would you go so far as to say that SOAP Encoding is basically just
> used for RPC? I've heard this from others offlist, but the 1.2 spec and WG
> charter had given me the impression that it might be intended for wider
> Dan
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 13:25:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:16 UTC