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

Re: Proposed resolution for issue 440

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:29:15 -0800
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1068335236.1321.7.camel@localhost>

Anish, 

are you trying to say that you want your application to use the
inclusion part of MTOM to avoid having to specify a referencing scheme
and still to be able to transfer repeating binary data optimally?

Your application is free to do that, except that if it then uses SOAP,
the SOAP layer doesn't provide a way to specify anything but the infoset
of your message, so I'd imagine you'd put the binary chunks in headers.
The proposed Representation header would be suitable for this, wouldn't
it? 8-)

IOW, SOAP doesn't know about anything external to the infoset of a
message, and MTOM doesn't try to change that. Of course one could devise
a binding that had a feature of transporting additional parts and a
property containing those additional parts, and that's the SwA approach,
but since the processing model is unclear, PASWA (and subsequently MTOM)
chooses the other approach of everything in the infoset.

Hope it helps to clarify things,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/




On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 19:32, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> Gudge,
> 
> We have already accepted use case UC6 [2]. It seems to me that this 
> requires that we allow multiple references to the same attachment.
> 
> You have suggested that Representation header can be used for this 
> purpose. I don't see how this will work (possibly because of not 
> understanding exactly what you meant).
> 
> For example, I may have the following XML fragment to be send inside a 
> SOAP env:
> 
> <foo>
>    <bindata1>...</bindata>
>    <bindata2>...</bindata2>
> <foo>
> 
> Both bindata1 and bindata2 have the exact same binary content.
> I can include the data in the MIME part with content-id 
> "1234@example.org" and send the following (along with the right MIME parts):
> 
> <foo>
>    <bindata1>
>      <xbinc:Include href="cid:1234@example.org"/>
>    </bindata1>
>    <bindata2>
>      <xbinc:Include href="cid:1234@example.org"/>
>    </bindata2>
> 
> If I am not allowed to do this, then the binary data has to be 
> replicated in two MIME parts (defeats the purpose of optimization).
> 
> I don't quite see how Representation header fits the bill. To use the 
> Representation header, I have to change the original infoset that I 
> wanted to send (by inventing a application specific mechanism of 
> referring to the URI whose content is carried by the Representation 
> header) -- which means it is no longer just optimization.
> 
> For example I can do the following:
> 
> <foo>
>    <bindata1 myhref="http://example.com/bindata"/>
>    <bindata2 myhref="http://example.com/bindata"/>
> </foo>
> 
> where, "http://example.com/bindata" is the value of the "URI" attribute 
> on the Representation header element.
> 
> Did I correctly infer what you were trying to say about how 
> Representation header can be used? If so, I don't think it fits the 
> bill. If not, can you please explain what you meant.
> 
> Thx.
> 
> -Anish
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2003 12:29:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:15 GMT