RE: XMLP WG Response on "SOAP and the Internal Subset"

Larry Masinter writes:

>> The discussion makes it sound like the considerations are as much
>> "code footprint", "reliability", "simplicity" as they are
>> "performance". 

Yes.  Not necessarily all required in any one use case, but certainly 
footprint and high speed are each required separately.  Many of the small 
footprint devices require not only small code size, but also speeds that 
while not high compared to server throughput, are a challenge given small 
processors on small devices.  Without question high throughput performance 
on servers is already proving a challenge from early adopter customers, 
and is likely to get worse.

Simplicity and reliability are probably a little harder to pin down 
objectively, but are clearly of importance.

>> It's good to be clear about the requirements, partly to
>> decide if they are appropriately satisfied by the proposed solution.

Absolutely.  As you are probably aware, we (SOAP 1.2) do indeed have a 
requirements document [1].  I happen to be offline and can't doublecheck, 
but I believe you'll find that it calls out small devices as a target use 
case, with associated requirements on size and overhead.  I believe it 
also makes clear that high performance interconnection of server 
applications and/or replacement for systems like EDI is a requirement.  If 
it doesn't say or clearly imply that, it should.  I can't say that I feel 
the requirements document 100% nails everything that it should, but the 
intention to clarify requirements independent of solutions is clearly 
there.  Thanks!


Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 23:25:05 UTC