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

Re: PASWA, Include and Protocol Bindings

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 12:58:45 -0400
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-id: <0000355C-7FE4-11D7-966D-0003937568DC@sun.com>

On Monday, May 5, 2003, at 20:36 US/Eastern, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com 
wrote:
>
> My key point is:  I don't want the applications to see the Include.
> Indeed, my understand of PASWA is that the whole point is that
> "attachments" are modeled by value as children.  It's not the doInclude
> that bothers me, as I said, it's the xbinc:Include element.  That 
> violates
> the whole notion that PASWA models things by value.  I think it also
> raises many, many architectural complexities.   Does a signature sign 
> the
> child data or the include element?  Indeed, one of the claimed 
> benefits of
> PASWA (and it's one I quite like) is that the infoset can be carried by
> bindings that don't play tricks:  our own HTTP binding can send the
> character children.
>
I find the implications of the above rather disturbing. My mental model 
of PASWA was of 'logical' inclusion rather than 'actual' inclusion. If 
the Include mechanism is only a matter for the binding then, unless we 
introduce the notion of a BII (binary information item), bindings that 
support attachments will be forced to base64 or hex encode the contents 
of those attachments prior to passing them on to the 'SOAP layer'. Such 
a requirement would seriously impact any performance advantage gained 
from using attachments rather than inline serialization.

Marc.

--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2003 12:59:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:14 GMT