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

Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns

From: Kumeda <kumeda@atc.yamatake.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:54:37 +0900
Message-Id: <200110240818.RAA94020@ATCGATE.atc.yamatake.co.jp>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'marwan sabbouh'" <ms@mitre.org>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hello Stuart:

First of all, I do not intend to push you to respond as I know now that you are
on a course and will be on a vacation. Please enjoy both!


> I think that there is much that we agree on. BTW, in terms of defining the
> services that SOAP provides to it's users, that's a place that the Abstract
> Model (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlp-am.html) was going. It was (is) not to
> everybodies taste... and we will need to do some maintainence to it in due
> course.

Yes. I skimmed through the article you mentioned above and found that it uses
the same concept Marwan raised and I summarized. Section 2 of the document
clearly states that XMLP applications will use services provided by the XMLP
layer. We should use the same concept for the services provided by the lower
layers.

Section 5 may be misleading: the text may suggest that there exists a binding
layer that provides certain functionality. However in 5.1.4 Sample Mappings
section, the tables show exactly what I modeled as Contract 4, i.e., use service
primitives provided by the underlying transport layer and use them to carry SOAP
messages.

If the TBTF bases this document as a starting point, we are just expressing the
same thing from different perspectives. Therefore, I think the team is taking
the 2) approach below. What do you think?  I know as you described, this is not
a "Tell-me-if-it-is-black-or-white" issue.


> 1) The Chamelon View (aka 'bottom-up'): Basically, SOAP takes on the
> character of the thing that it is bound to. So 'Contract 2' and 'Contract 4'
> are very similar, and certainly 'Contract 2' varies with 'Contract 4'.
>
> 2) The Platform View (aka 'top-down'): SOAP defines a service abstraction at
> 'Contract 2' that is largely 'invariant' across different underlying
> protocols ('Contract 4's). The SOAP layer works to present a consistent
> abstraction of its services to the application entities above it.



> FWIW there are also folks who would not subscribe the the view that even in
> the abstract there is a boundary at 'Contract 2'. They see the Application
> and the SOAP layer as somewhat monolithic.

I disagree with this approach. The SOAP application and SOAP protocol shall be
clearly separated. BTW, what does FWIW stand for?

Have a nice vacation,
    Yasuo

--
Kumeda, Yasuo                          TEL: +81-466-20-2430
                                       FAX: +81-466-20-2431
Research and Development Headquarters
Yamatake Corporation

Fujisawashi Kawana 1-12-2
Kanagawa, 251-8522 JAPAN
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 03:58:51 GMT

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