- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:05:19 -0400
- To: rden@loc.gov
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
One thing that comes up as a result of recent discussion on soapbuilders
is the question of references to encoded data that spans headers. In SOAP
terms, I can have multiref objects on one header, and reference from
another. That doesn't specifically say unitdata isn't enough, but it
suggests a lack of modularity in the headers that might need to be
reflected at a core layer. Not sure, but I think we should leave
ourselves room to discuss this at the right time. Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
04/11/01 06:24 PM
Please respond to rden
To: XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus)
Subject: Modeling RPC with UnitData
I was asked by the WG to draft a resolution to the question of abstract
modeling
of RPC; namely, is the UnitData primitive sufficient at the XMLP layer to
model
RPC? (The actual question was whether the UnitData primitive needed a
response-required parameter.)
One theory is this: It has now been agreed that RPC will be represented by
a
module, modeled on top of the XMLP layer, and it therefore does not need
to be
represented by a state machine within the XMLP layer itself (thus the RPC
nature
of a transaction is not visible to XMLP).
To bring this issue to resolution, I would like to ask if there is anyone
not
comfortable with this approach. I am tasked with proposing a solution by
noon
Monday; if there is no response to this, that is what I will propose.
--Ray
--
Ray Denenberg
Library of Congress
rden@loc.gov
202-707-5795
Received on Friday, 20 April 2001 11:08:04 UTC