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

ISSUE 56 : Draft resolution

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:54:25 -0500
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CBF82917@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Hi all!

Issue 56 on our issues list [1] involves the "transport protocol neutrality" of SOAP 1.2.

I believe this issue can be resolved with something like the following text:

As a result of the Transport Binding Framework in SOAP 1.2, we have separated out the concept of request/response correlation from a particular transport instance (HTTP) into an abstract "feature", whose specification may be found in the Adjuncts section of our spec.  As described in the framework text, features may be implemented in a variety of ways, including but not limited to transport-specific representations thereof.  Although we have not gone so far as to define an entirely transport-neutral correlation mechanism (such as might be accomplished with SOAP headers), we believe we have demonstrated that such a mechanism is possible.  These aspects of our work have removed the "hard-wired" dependence on HTTP correlation mechanisms.

In answer to the second part of the issue, namely that SOAP processor endpoint information must be transport protocol endpoint information, I would posit that this was never really the case.  The "actor" attribute in SOAP 1.1 was defined as an arbitrary URI, just like actors/roles in SOAP 1.2.  If I am reading the issue correctly and the problem was with node identifiers (i.e. actors) vs. endpoint identifiers (i.e. transport URLs), I think this distinction has been made even more clear in SOAP 1.2.

Comments / discussion on this?



[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x56
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 14:45:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:47 UTC