RE: Proposed resolution: issues 78, 16

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