- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 08:52:59 -0800
- 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, sorry): "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]? Henrik [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/19/Binding_Framework.html -----Original Message----- From: Mountain, Highland M [mailto:highland.m.mountain@intel.com] 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 David, 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 understanding. Talk to you Monday. Highland
Received on Saturday, 3 November 2001 11:53:37 UTC