- From: Lucas Gonze <lucas@gonze.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 16:10:14 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Oismn Hurley <ohurley_no@spam_iona.com>
- cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Oismn,
> SOAP is intended to represent data - message types, invocation frames,
> context information, etc. It not intended to describe connection semantics,
> fragmentation, channel management and the like. This area is the prerogative
> of the protocol that carries the SOAP envelope. Hence the datatyping rather
> than the semantics issue - it's there by design.
If I understand this right, the distinction is that wOS is a transport
protocol, and SOAP is an application protocol.
I believe that a trivial connector message that would work would be:
<msg>
<protocol>
<function>soap connector</function>
</protocol>
<funcdata>
soap envelope
</funcdata>
</msg>
Datatypes in wOS are used in derived application protocols, so this draws
a nice clear line between the two protocols. (There is some duplicate
functionality, particularly in the RPC mechanism.)
The only real conflict is at the application level, between the wOS-based
peer networking protocol and SOAP. I wonder about ways to connect the
two? Maybe it would just require adding push and pop elements to
msg->funcdata. Since they wouldn't need to interact with the soap
envelope, the final message would be:
<msg>
<protocol>
<function>soap connector</function>
</protocol>
<funcdata>
soap envelope
<push/>
<pop/>
</funcdata>
</msg>
This would supply correlation fairly neatly. The connector would unpack
the state, find the relevant handler, and send it the newly arrived
message.
A nice benefit of using wOS to transport SOAP is that the peer networking
functionality already exists. This might be a low-pain way to move away
from http. ...just integrate the wOS org.worldos.nyo package with the
soap manager.
> Cross version compatibility I think is catered for -- the syntax is
> extensible, provided it fits within the framework of the envelope, header
> and body elements. I think this is acceptable - if interoperability is a
> goal, which it is for sure with SOAP, then it is important to preserve some
> kind of basic structure.
SOAP has progressed pretty far since I started wOS, particularly in the
use of namespaces. Either way I'd rather avoid spending time on any kind
of religious war.
Thanks for your detailed response, Oismn.
- Lucas
Received on Saturday, 8 July 2000 16:16:16 UTC