W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2003

RE: What is a SOAP Message

From: John J. Barton <John_Barton@HPL.HP.COM>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 09:50:43 -0800
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.2.20030206093642.01b19680@hplex1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

At 04:42 PM 2/5/2003 -0800, Jeffrey Schlimmer wrote:
[snip]
> > As far as the SOAP spec is concerned, all that stuff is extension
> > features.  In the case of attachments, there should be features
>describing
> > their processing, and relating it if necessary to the SOAP processing
> > model.
>
>If attachment "features" annotate the Envelope Infoset, then the
>processing of those "features" can leverage the SOAP processing model
>and compose well with other "features". Great!
>
>If they do not, then someone needs to define how they address the same
>issues that the SOAP processing model does. Not to mention the
>engineering effort, introducing a new processing model raises the real
>risk that the new "feature" won't compose with independently-developed
>"features".

I am hoping that someone will reinterpret this discussion for me.
I just cannot understand how attachments need work along these
lines.  By their very nature "attachments" attach to or are secondary
to a center or primary entity, in this case the SOAP envelope.  The
SOAP XML refers to these attachments and determines their processing.
That's it.  The SOAP processing model is the processing model.
What is broken here that needs to be fixed?

Moreover it seems that some of this discussion concerns the potential
for enabling attachment packaging transformation.  That is, by making
some identification between a concrete packaging specification and
an abstract data model (infoset), the big gain is a straight-forward model
for converting one package type into another.  That is we could convert
a Base64 package into a SwA or DIME package or vice versa.  Is that
what the infoset stuff would allow?  If so, then why is that desirable?  The
central problem to be solved by the AFTF is standardization of the
packaging scheme.  Introducing transformations means one has to
develop content negotiation to interoperate: is that what you want?

Sorry if my questions are too far behind the discussion.



______________________________________________________
John J. Barton          email:  John_Barton@hpl.hp.com
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Barton/index.htm
MS 1U-17  Hewlett-Packard Labs
1501 Page Mill Road              phone: (650)-236-2888
Palo Alto CA  94304-1126         FAX:   (650)-857-5100
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2003 13:25:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:13 GMT