- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:51:59 +0100 (CET)
- To: Tim Ewald <tjewald@develop.com>
- cc: "'XMLDISTAPP'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Tim, please see my replies below.
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
> > I had originally seen SOAP 1.1 as being closer to #2. I now
> > see lots of
> > discussion and proposed text that seems to presume model #1.
> > We seem to
> > be freely talking about "interfaces" (an endpoint construct), or from
> > Gudge's note:
> >
> > "For example, given the following COM IDL method signature:
> >
> > void Add ( [in] long x, [in] long y, [out] long* sum );"
> >
> > which is very much an option #1 way of looking at the world.
>
> I think *loads* of people think of not just the SOAP RPC model, but SOAP
> as a whole this way.
I for myself learned SOAP starting with version 1.1 and it seemed
to me from the start that RPC is just an optional layer above
SOAP. But I don't have enough statistical information to be able
to contradict your sentence above, therefore it may be useful to
try to stress this point in the spec. I think this was attempted
already, if only by calling the RPC convention an adjunct.
Jacek
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 08:52:03 UTC