W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > July 2004

Re: Requirements for attachments^H^H^H transport optimisation

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 12:42:02 -0700
Message-Id: <632CA272-CEBB-11D8-8B38-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
To: Patrick Steer <webmaster@die-werbung.de>

A better place for this discussion might be the XML Binary 
Characterisation WG;
   http://www.w3.org/XML/Binary/

That's not to say that these aren't important considerations for MTOM, 
but the XBCWG was formed specifically to talk about them.

Regards,


On Jul 3, 2004, at 7:46 AM, Patrick Steer wrote:

>
>
>
>
> I think it would be useful to spend a little time identifying the 
> higher-level requirements surrounding MTOM and the like. These are the 
> ones I'm aware of: 1) Reduce "bytes on the wire", to improve bandwidth 
> usage / transport latency. 2) Reduce processing overhead during the 
> generation and consumption of messages. 3)
> Enable selective reordering in the serialization of message 
> components, to allow flexibility in processing. The third deserves a 
> bit more explanation; a use case might be placing a large binary file 
> after the SOAP envelope in the serialized message, so that an 
> intermediary (or ultimate receiver, for that matter) can act upon the 
> message before reading all of the bytes off the wire.
>
> Are there any other high-level requirements associated with the 
> abstract MTOM feature? I think it would be nice to call these out in 
> the document at some point. It would also be good to note that these 
> can all be seen as encoding issues and nothing more.
> http://xml.project-web.org
> http://ebooks.die-werbung.de
> http://project-web.org
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Monday, 5 July 2004 15:42:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:18 GMT