- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 13:29:38 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- cc: Williams Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Jean-Jacques,
I view a server as a collection of endpoints (and it is usual to
be able to bind different services to different paths in the
server) so what you've written below is perfectly possible
without single endpoints allowing both kind of messages.
On the other hand, Stuart's (b) is a possible approach, too, but
IMHO the existence of the ProcedureNotFound subfaultcode
indicates that the creators thereof thought in terms of (a).
Best regards,
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> Oh! why not? I can imagine a generic server offering both a RPC and a non-RPC
> interface (although I know which one I would not use).
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
> Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>
> > I've always viewed the RPC convention as an application of
> > SOAP which specifies the contents of the body. Therefore I don't
> > see an endpoint accepting both RPC and non-RPC messages.
>
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 07:29:40 UTC