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

Re: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment?

From: john d. beatty <jbeatty@gonesilent.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:07:12 -0700
Message-ID: <00fe01c151cf$887f9fb0$240a0a0a@vrip.com>
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Shuo Shen" <sshen@softartisans.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Does it makes sense to have a DIME binding for SOAP with Attachments? Right
now, section 5 "HTTP Binding" [1] provides for using MIME multipart but not
for the application/dime media-type defined by the DIME spec [2]. The key
concept of "SOAP References to Attachments" (section 3, SOAPwA spec) is
still relevant and necessary in the context of DIME, but we do not have a
formal specification for that yet (the tweaks necessary from the current
SOAPwA spec are pretty trivial I believe).

Note that SOAP-RP defines an optional HTTP-DIME-SOAP binding [3]. It would
be nice to have these specs refactored such that there is a DIME binding
specified for SOAP directly (outside the SOAP-RP spec) and a SOAPwA spec
that is generic enough to allow for both mime multipart and dime.

All this work would be predicated on people liking DIME and finding it
useful. Of course, it is possible that SOAPwA using MIME multipart solves
90% of the problems out there with acceptable efficiency, at which point the
motivation for using DIME, making room for it in specs, etc. is
substantially reduced.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments#HTTPBinding
[2] http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/xml_wsspecs/dime/default.htm
[3] http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/xml_wsspecs/soap-rp/default.html#N0750

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
To: "Shuo Shen" <sshen@softartisans.com>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 4:15 PM
Subject: RE: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment?

> Not to contradict what John said about SOAP with attachment, just for
> the fun of it you might also want to have a look at DIME
> http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/xml_wsspecs/dime/default.htm
> Henrik
> >Specifically, we suggest about two ways:
> >1. Adding a http-like Content-Disposition header to each body
> >part, which will have sth like:
> >
> >--MIME_boundary
> >Content-Type: image/tiff
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
> >Content-ID: <claim061400a.tiff@claiming-it.com>
> >Content-Disposition: attachment-data; name="attachment1";
> >filename="foo.tif""
> >
> >so we know we can persist the following data to a file anyway
> >no matter the size;
> >
> >2. Or adding a Content-Length or Attachment-Length header for
> >each body part
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2001 17:07:36 UTC

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