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

RE: SOAP Binding Framework, HTTP Binding, MEP documents

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:47:16 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F1926FE@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Glyn Normington'" <glyn_normington@uk.ibm.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Glyn,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glyn Normington [mailto:glyn_normington@uk.ibm.com]
> Sent: 19 October 2001 14:13
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SOAP Binding Framework, HTTP Binding, MEP documents
> 
> 
> Stuart,
> 
> That was a helpful reply - thank you! The mystery of QoS 
> should start to unravel when features are further defined.
> 
> I am trying to discern the relationship between SOAP, MEPs, 
> features, and transport bindings. Would it be fair to say 
> that a transport binding may implement SOAP with a 
> particular set of MEPs and a particular set of features?

Basically yes... but I would try to maintain a careful distinction between
transport meps (provided to SOAP by bindings) and application meps (provided
by SOAP to the things that use SOAP).


> If this is the case, I wonder if multi-hops scenarios with more than one
> transport binding involved effectively result in only the MEPs and
features
> common to all of the involved transport bindings being implemented?

I've a couple of thoughts on this... 

Firstly, I think that application meps can be synthesised within the SOAP
layer from whatever raw materials the underlying binding support. So for
example, a simplistic UDP binding might support a one-way, lossy,
unsequenced... transport message exchange. SOAP could still provide a
request-response pattern to an Application, however, the machinery within
SOAP layer would have to add headers to the message to do the necessary
message correlation and duplicate detection - yes arms are flapping a bit
here... but you could see with some repetoire of application meps and some
repetoire of transport meps, we could get to describing how to synthesise
particular application patterns from what the transport bindings are able to
offer.

Regarding features... for features that in some sense extended across
multiple hops, I think the description of that feature needs to describe the
behaviour required at a SOAP intermediary to correctly relay the feature
across multiple hops.

> 
> Glyn
> 
Hope this helps,

Regards

Stuart
Received on Friday, 19 October 2001 09:49:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT