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

Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns

From: Steve Vinoski <vinoski@iona.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:43:58 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011026104006.00e19100@mail.boston.amer.iona.com>
To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
Cc: Marwan Sabbouh <ms@mitre.org>, 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
<delurk>
I agree 110% with Noah. There are several middleware systems out there, 
such as IONA's Adaptive Runtime Technology (ART), that provide 
application-transparent multiprotocol binding and transport capabilities. 
Such systems have been used in production for years now. We don't want to 
take any steps backward in this area with SOAP.
</delurk>

--steve

At 10:34 PM 10/25/01 -0400, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:
>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 Friday, 26 October 2001 11:36:45 GMT

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