- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:43:17 +0000
- To: "Mountain, Highland M" <highland.m.mountain@intel.com>
- CC: "Christopher Ferris (E-mail)" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, "David Fallside (E-mail)" <fallside@us.ibm.com>, "Glen Daniels (E-mail)" <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, "Henrik Nielsen (E-mail)" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Hugo Haas (E-mail)" <hugo@w3.org>, "Mark A. Jones (E-mail) (E-mail)" <jones@research.att.com>, "Noah Mendelsohn (E-mail)" <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, "Oisin Ohurley (E-mail)" <ohurley@iona.com>, "Stuart' 'Williams (E-mail)" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Yves Lafon (E-mail)" <ylafon@w3.org>, "'www-archive@w3.org'" <www-archive@w3.org>
Mountain, Highland M wrote: >All, > >The statements below are my attempt to reconcile the ongoing conflict within >the TBTF surrounding section Part 1, 5.1. The statement preserves the >modular layered approach while being more specific as to the responsibility >and definition of features expressed as SOAP Headers. > > >Current text: > >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. > >Suggested change (which keeps the spirit of what we initially tried to state >(Glen, Stuart and Henrik's position) but clarifies the balance of >responsibility such that readers are not left with a vague notion of where >SOAP Header features should be defined): > >It is up to the application developer to decide how best to express >particular features. If a particular feature is not available at the >transport binding-level, or will not be appropriate in the given end-to-end >messaging scenario, it is up to the application developer to capture the >requirement for features expressed in the envelope via WSDL or some other >construct outside the transport binding specification. The communicating >nodes must then understand the representation and requirements of such >features to facilitate interoperability. > Can we replace "it is up to" with "it is the responsibility of" ? I don't think we should mention WSDL. The text still sounds a little muddled to me, instead how about: When a particular feature set is required, it is the responsibility of the application developer to choose a suitable combination of binding and in-the-envelope expressed features. Often when a particular feature is implemented in the binding, utilizing it in preference to an in-the-envelope representation will provide for optimised processing. Marc. > >Are we getting closer to a compromise? > >Thanks, > >Highland > >....................Spec content and ed note of current WD > >The combination of the SOAP extensibility model and the SOAP binding >framework provides some flexibility in the way that particular features can >be expressed: they 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. > > > >Editorial note: HFN 20011201 >Some discussion continues on how best to represent the balance of >responsibility between binding specifications in particular, vs. other >software at the SOAP node, when dealing with features that are represented >entirely within the SOAP envelope. The paragraph above may need some >additional work to clarify > > >Highland Mary Mountain > >Intel Corporation >Distributed Systems Lab (DSL - CTG) >(480) 552 - 3817 > >highland.m.mountain@intel.com > >
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2002 05:43:38 UTC