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

RE: Resolving the Ed Note in Part 1 section 5.1 (was New Issues)

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:53:50 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192907@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: dug@us.ibm.com, "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>
Hmmm.... nesting envelopes feels like it might be fraught with some of the
difficulties of nesting XML - document scoped artifacts, id collisions,
charset issues...

Not sure I really want to go there.

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: 29 January 2002 13:20
> To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Cc: dug@us.ibm.com; 'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'; skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com;
> xml-dist-app
> Subject: Re: Resolving the Ed Note in Part 1 section 5.1 (was New
> Issues)
> 
> 
> Presumably, one could use nested SOAP envelopes to get around 
> the problem of
> not being able to apply the SOAP extensibility framework. In 
> this model, the
> initial envelope would be wrapped into a second envelope that would be
> delivered to the next hop. The second envelope would contain 
> binding specific
> information, represented as headers (bodies?). :)
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> > You raise a good point.  In this proposal, the binding is 
> indeed viewed as
> > separate in the sense that the processing rules of chapter 
> 2 apply >after<
> > a binding has done the job of receiving an infoset, and at 
> an intermediary
> > >before< the relayed infoset is sent by the binding.  So, 
> in that sense
> > separate.
> >
> > The proposal I made is intended as a compromise.   By imposing the
> > separation, we get out of the business of figuring out how 
> to integrate
> > the two.  For example, we don't have to say how a binding 
> can munge with
> > the envelope when in fact the processing rules say that 
> >all< mU checking
> > must be done before any processing is done.  What we lose 
> is the ability
> > to apply the soap extensibility and processing model to bindings.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> > IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> > One Rogers Street
> > Cambridge, MA 02142
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 08:54:00 GMT

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