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

Re: Sharing MTOM parts for identical leaf nodes

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:30:51 +0200
To: Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1065619851.9198.60.camel@localhost>

Noah,

I think this might be useful, but if it opens too many questionable
cases, I'd be happy to disallow this in our serialization spec.

In any case, I don't think the abstract feature needs to be aware of
this. I know you didn't even mention the abstract feature in your text.

Best regards

                   Jacek Kopecky

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




On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 02:31, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Jacek and I had some private discussion of this over the summer, but I'm
> not sure whether it ever resulted in any public consideration by the WG:
> 
> It occurs to me that in certain use cases the identical large binary might
> logically serve as content to multiple leaf nodes.  This could in principle
> be done by reference to headers, but that changes the vocabularies and is
> not in all cases natural.  I wonder whether we should allow a smart MTOM
> implementation to point multiple xbinc:Includes to the same mime part (I.e.
> use the same URI)?  Seems like a win to me, and I can quite easily imagine
> implementations that would know from the construction of the DOM or similar
> structure that the content was identical.
> 
> In any case, I think we should open an issue to make clear what the rule
> is, even if we just clarify that you must not link a given mtom part from
> more than (or perhaps less than?) a single xbinc:Include.  My current
> leaning would be to allow flexibility in both directions.  Multiple
> xbinc:Includes should be able to ref the same content, and it should be
> possible to carry content that is not referenced at all (e.g. to avoid the
> need for reference counting, or to maintain certain kinds of signatures,
> even if a header with a reference is removed.)  That said, I wouldn't
> expect many implementations to avail themselves of the permission to send
> large useless content,  but I think the sharing makes sense.
> 
> New issue?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2003 09:30:53 GMT

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