- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 19:08:04 -0700
- To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@idoox.com>
- Cc: <mlong@phalanxsys.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I may be missing something but if an RPC invocation or the result of an invocation is modeled as a single-rooted instance of a directed graph within the SOAP encoding data model then why is additional information needed to identify the top element of the invocation or result of that invocation? Note here that I am making a distinction between this question and whether the RPC convention has to be serialized using the SOAP section 5 encoding style or not (which I don't think is the case). That is, it is possible to invent other encoding styles for this particular RPC convention using the encodingStyle attribute. Henrik >Jacek writes: > >>> RPC needs to point to the RPC element while >>> an encoding wants to mark serialization >>> root(s). > >+1. This is exactly the right distinction between the two. Again, I'm >still not 100 percent sure I'm ready to endorse any particular >approach, >but I think the distinction in the potential needs is just >right. For >better or worse, the chapter 5 encoding provides a graph data >model. One >of its uses is for RPC, but there are other potential uses. The root >attribute distinguishes certain nodes in the graphs. Chapter >7 provides >for remote procedure call: the proposed START tag marks the >element that >identifies the service to be called, I think. I wonder >whether something >like METHOD= or CALL= might be more suggestive than START? >I'm not sure >we are really starting anything, so much as distinguishing the element >that identifies the call to be attempted.
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2001 22:08:48 UTC