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

Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns

From: Arie Golos <agolos@emc.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:05:08 -0400
Message-ID: <3BD84644.12951F3@emc.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
From a different angle:
Given that supported MEPs can be different at the client and server endpoints,
the right call the client app should make to the XP infrastructure would be:

Give me  MEPs for the application at this URI supported by you.

At this point the infrastructure will embark on the lengthy processing
along the route of the message path.
Once the client app knows supported MEPs, it configures itself appropriately.
For example, if the server's infrastructure does not allow one way messages
in the client's direction, the client should not request to be notified and might
use polling instead.

Do I understand it right?

Arie

Christopher Ferris wrote:

> Marwan,
>
> I'm not sure that I agree. It should be possible to have the
> application resolve a service endpoint at deploy or runtime
> in which case the application developer need not be concerned
> with the protocol, only that it satisfies/supports a particular
> MEP. How that MEP is handled at the protocol level is (or should be) the
> problem of the binding implementation, not the application.
>
> A service may also be accessed via multiple protocols, and it should
> be possible to shield the service implementation (application) from
> the underlying protocol(s) thus allowing the same code to be
> accessed via multiple channels.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
> Marwan Sabbouh wrote:
>
> <snip/>
> >
> > Your assertion:  if the binding support a specific
> > flavour of request response ( where a specific flavour of request
> > response is identified by a URI and is an instance of a message exchange
> > pattern... , then we "can write my SOAP application in blissfull ignorance of which
> > underlying protocol is being used rather than tying it to a particular underlying protocol
> > and it's details"
> >
> > Please explain that?
> >
> >  it is unclear to me how the above assertion hold true or what  the real value is. It seems
> > to me that the SOAP application programmer still needs ( and wants) to specify the protocol
> > he needs to use.  It is true that he does not need ( want) to deal with the details of the
> > protocol, but this is possible whether or not you specify those MEPs and is done by the SOAP
> > vendor.
>
> >
> > Thanks;
> > Marwan
> >
> >
> >>>Case 2: Someone would like to provide reliability and correlation at a higher layer.
> >>>
> >>Agree with what you wrote here. We provide the module framework (i.e.
> >>the SOAP envelope and processing rules) rather than every conceivable
> >>module. The binding framework is trying to do the same thing below SOAP.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Marc.
> >>--
> >>Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
> >>XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
> >>
> >
> >
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2001 13:05:55 GMT

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