- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:32:58 -0400
- To: Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 07:51:15AM -0500, Ken MacLeod wrote: > [I have trimmed the Cc list to only xml-dist-app. Please do not Cc me > directly on posts to xml-dist-app.] > > David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com> writes: > > > Henrik says ... > > > > >>>David brings up good points - no doubt about that but I think we have to > > keep in mind which layer(s) they apply to<<< > > > > I agree. > > > > But what layers do we need, when do need to develop them and in what > > sequence? > > I think we can clearly seperate serialization (a la SOAP Section 8) > from most other aspects (messaging and transport, specifically). > > I think a serialization format can and should be discussed in its own > forum, track, and/or working group. The other aspects are a much > larger problem space. If we devote some time and attention to the general architecture, we can get a clear picture of what the pieces need from each other. However, I doubt it is yet time to have sepperate groups looking at serialization and RPC. Also, I'm not convinced that serialization would be specified in a sepparate document from messaging. The two seem to rely on each other pretty intimately. It is easy to imaging stacking an RPC protocol on top of a standard message format without having the message format require anything of the RPC protocol. I'm having a harder time drawing such a line between messaging and serialization. Do you have some time to draw up a doc describing the goals of these sepparate groups? -- -eric (eric@w3.org)
Received on Monday, 17 April 2000 18:33:02 UTC