- From: Constantine Plotnikov <cap@mail.novosoft.ru>
- Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 20:35:37 +0600
- To: Dave Winer <dave@userland.com>
- CC: "Box, Don" <dbox@develop.com>, SOAP@discuss.develop.com, "Tim O'Reilly (E-mail)" <tim@oreilly.com>, timbl@w3.org, tbray@textuality.com, ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us, Daniel.Veillard@w3.org, connolly@w3.org, eric@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (E-mail)" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Steve Vinoski (E-mail)" <vinoski@iona.com>
"Box, Don" wrote: > > No one had concrete criticisms of the SOAP serialization format. That does > not mean it is perfect. However, it means that no one who has looked at the > spec has any credible technical show-stoppers that they are willing to share > in an open forum. > I personally like XMI 1.1 serialization algorithm more. It is more simple to decode and encode then SOAP one if schema is used. Without schema it is a bit more difficult to get types of values. I would suggest to consider XMI algorithm for payload encoding. XMI 1.1 Specification can be downloaded at Main Document: http://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/ad/99-10-03.pdf Appendices: http://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/ad/99-10-02.pdf To get feel of the spec, please look at "99-10-03" document at examples section. I would like to discussion to continue in xml-dist-app@w3.org only. It has very low trafic currently. To be used for RPC it need some additions like standard array type. Constantine
Received on Friday, 3 March 2000 09:36:31 UTC