W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2002

RE: Issue with soap-rpc:result

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:29:09 -0500
To: jacek@systinet.com
Cc: Tim Ewald <tjewald@develop.com>, "'XMLDISTAPP'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFE46678A1.F30082CB-ON85256B5E.0054B291@lotus.com>
Jacket Kopecky writes:

>> Therefore I vote yes on 2 - decoupling RPC from 
>> the graph data model

It's interesting to ask what's left of RPC when we do this.  We've already 
separated out request/response as an exchange pattern, so we've got that. 
By leaving out the data model, we're eliminating any fixed notion of how 
arguments are results are modeled, except to say that they are XML.  The 
only thing I can think of that's left is to indicate that the QName of the 
immediate child of <Body> is the key to dispatching the service to be 
performed (keep in mind that our default rules for handling bodies are now 
looser than that.)  What else would be left of RPC in your proposal (I'm 
neither endorsing nor disagreeing with it, just asking for clarification). 

Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 12:40:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:18 UTC