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

Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns

From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:34:55 -0400
To: Marwan Sabbouh <ms@mitre.org>
Cc: Kumeda <kumeda@atc.yamatake.co.jp>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD0E86DFB.742A7F63-ON85256AF0.00745FA7@lotus.com>
Marwah Sabbouh writes:

>> It seems to me that the SOAP application 
>> programmer still needs ( and wants) to specify the protocol
>> he needs to use.

Perhaps this is the essence of the disagreement.  When I write a program 
to read a file, I typically don't know at the time I write and compile the 
program whether I will read from a hard drive or a floppy, NTFS vs. FAT or 
whatever.   Of course, when I run the program, it will be one or the 
other.  Indeed, sometimes the same program on Unix can read from a socket, 
pipe or tape drive too.  The general notions of Open/Close/Read/Write are 
analagous to our binding framework:  they state what's common across all 
these diverse data management systems.

The mechanisms of the binding framework allow a similar and very important 
late coupling for SOAP applications.  With respect, I claim that in many 
cases I do _not_ want to hard code knowledge of the transport into my 
application business logic.  I want to say:  "send this envelope as a soap 
request, using whatever transport is appropriate." 

I expect that some middleware, not specified in SOAP, but very possibly 
some combination of UDDI and WSDL will allow me at deployment time or 
runtime (long after the application is coded and compiled) to figure out 
which transport each of my partners is using.  So, I might use 
Request/Resp over http to reach some partners, and Request/Resp over 
MQSeries to reach those with whom I have set up such a link.  I do _NOT_ 
want to recode my application when switching from one supplier to another: 
 I expect Request/Resp to look the same over both, and I expect middleware 
to make the transport binding switch for me, just as the OS and filesystem 
know whether to go to the floppy or the harddrive. 

I think this flexibility is powerful and important in practice.  I can see 
why, if you are not interested in these scenarios, the binding framework 
would be of less use.  Some of us very much want to build applications in 
this manner and therefore look to the binding framework to provide the 
coordination across bindings.  I hope this makes sense.  Thank you.

Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2001 22:51:29 UTC

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