W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2001

RE: Capturing Noah's Goal - Framework Description for Nov 5

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 08:52:59 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D055AB58E@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Mountain, Highland M" <highland.m.mountain@intel.com>, "David Fallside (E-mail)" <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Oisin Hurley" <ohurley@iona.com>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, <Chris.Ferris@sun.com>, <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@akamai.com>, "Noah Mendelsohn" <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, <ylafon@w3.org>, "Mark A. Jones (E-mail)" <jones@research.att.com>, <www-archive@w3.org>, "Stuart' 'Williams (E-mail)" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

I have some of the same concerns as Glen but taking a step back, I am
somewhat confused as to how this text relates to the text that we
presented at the f2f (included as I can't find it online anywhere,

"SOAP provides a simple messaging framework with a core set of
functionality. As part of communicating between SOAP nodes it may be
necessary to introduce a variety of abstract features generally
associated with the exchange of messages in a protocol environment.
Although SOAP poses no constraints on the potential scope of such
features, typical examples include "reliability", "security",
"correlation", and "routing".

In some cases, underlying protocols are equipped with native mechanisms
for providing certain features, in whole or in part (for example,
message queueing systems typically provide a degree of reliability).

The SOAP Transport Binding Framework provides some flexibility in the
way that particular features can be expressed: Features can be expressed
entirely within the SOAP envelope (as blocks), outside the envelope
(typically in a manner that is specific to the underlying protocol), or
as a combination of such expressions. It is up to the communicating
nodes to decide how best to express particular features; often when a
binding-level implementation for a particular feature is available,
utilizing it when appropriate will provide for optimized processing."

I apologize if I have missed something but I thought we had something
resembling consensus on this but now I can't find this text in the
current binding document anymore [1]?


[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/19/Binding_Framework.html

	 -----Original Message-----
	From: 	Mountain, Highland M
	Sent:	Friday, November 02, 2001 14:24
	To:	David Fallside (E-mail)
	Cc:	'Oisin Hurley'; 'Hugo Haas'; 'Glen Daniels';
'Chris.Ferris@sun.com'; 'marc.hadley@sun.com'; 'Mark Nottingham'; 'Noah
Mendelsohn'; 'ylafon@w3.org'; 'Mark A. Jones (E-mail)';
'www-archive@w3.org'; Stuart' 'Williams (E-mail); Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
	Subject:	 Capturing Noah's Goal - Framework Description
for Nov 5
	Importance:	High


	FWIW, we have this text for Monday's meeting :  

	Any binding specification has a set of messaging requirements.
Some of these requirements could be satisfied by the underlying
protocol's native feature set.  Other requirements may need to be
provided outside of the underlying protocol. The requirements not
provided natively by the underlying protocol of choice will need to be
expressed in the resulting binding specification.  These requirements
will be expressed as features and associated properties.  SOAP nodes
will have to determine which resident modules satisfy the features
outside the scope of the underlying protocol, in order to be compliant
with a given binding specification.  

	The last statement is where we need to arrive at a common

	Talk to you Monday.

Received on Saturday, 3 November 2001 11:53:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:31:38 UTC