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

RE: Issue with soap-rpc:result

From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 20:11:36 -0800
Message-ID: <C3729BBB6099B344834634EC67DE4AE103DA379D@red-msg-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, "Tim Ewald" <tjewald@develop.com>
Cc: "XMLDISTAPP" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I can confirm that the idea that "RPC is just an optional layer above 
SOAP" has always been the opinion of at least this author of SOAP 1.1.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 5:52 AM
To: Tim Ewald
Cc: 'XMLDISTAPP'
Subject: RE: Issue with soap-rpc:result

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 Saturday, 16 February 2002 23:12:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT