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

Re: Transport Binding Reviews

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 15:33:09 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192B51@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Eamon O'Tuathail'" <eamon.otuathail@clipcode.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, "'xmlp-comments@w3.org'" <xmlp-comments@w3.org>

In December you responded [1] to David Fallside's request [2] for feedback
on the transport binding framework that was being incorporated into Working
Drafts that were published in December [3,4].

As we work towards our next Working Draft I have been asked to let you know
how the WG has respond to your comments. It would be helpful if you could
let us know whether we have adequately addressed you comments by 10th May
2002 and if not what further action you would like the WG to take.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eamon O'Tuathail [mailto:eamon.otuathail@clipcode.com]
> Sent: 04 December 2001 12:54
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Comments on Message Exchange Pattern: Single Request-Response
> I have two comments on the MEP SRR document. 
> There is discussion at the end of the document (in the 
> section "Transport Binding Framework Assumptions" onwards) 
> concerning the "environment", which is defined as "a 
> container for those properties that are not scoped on a 
> per-message or per message exchange basis". This could 
> includes items such as session keys and certificates that 
> are needed for multiple  message exchanges and could be 
> expensive to acquire. Unfortunately none of this discussion 
> has reached into the main body of the MEP SRR document - 
> and it should be there, as it will substantially improve 
> performance where multiple message exchanges occur. 

The substance of this discussion made it into the December WD [5] will
remain in subsequent revisions [6].

> The second point is that the processing model is very simplified - 
> it assumes the responding node will completely receive all the 
> data in the incoming message before even starting to process it. 
> It is likely that all efficient implementations will start 
> processing each part of the message as soon as it arrives. 
> Some might not be able to do anything until the end of the 
> request has arrived, but some bindings can react without having 
> received the end of the incoming message. If the request message 
> is somehow incorrect, such bindings could send back a pre-emptive error,
> thus preventing the sender having to transmit the rest of the (faulty) 
> request message. If the request msg is e.g. 1 MB (e.g. with photo 
> attachments) and the sender can be told quickly that there is 
> something wrong with it, then this prevents wasting bandwidth and 
>speeds up the sender in sending the subsequently correct message. 

The WG agreed at its most recent telcon to revise the request/response mep
to allow a temporal overlap between a response message and its corresponding
request. The proposal that was agreed on is made in [7] (and referenced
materials). It will be incorporated into the next published spec. WD.

> Eamon O'Tuathail

Best regards

Stuart Williams

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0036.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0272.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011217/
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part2-20011217/

[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part2-20011217/#soapfeatspec
[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0395.html
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 10:34:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:20 UTC