Re: RPC issue: multiple body blocks

Of course, it could also be generalised out to a more generic
boxcarring mechanism for SOAP messages in general, rather than a
RPC-specific one (preferred approach, I think)

My motivation is that module authors need to be able to make certain
assumptions about RPC messages; this is a pretty basic one.

Cheers,



On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 02:16:13PM -0700, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> Yeah, boxcarring is nifty, but out of scope for us, IIRC. Another RPC
> effort can tackle it, IMHO. Otherwise, we need to explicitly support
> it, and deal with all of the headaches it incurs...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 05:07:29PM -0400, Doug Davis wrote:
> > So you want to disallow boxcarring if sec. 7 is used.  It'll still be ok
> > to do boxcarring if some other RPC style is defined, right?
> > -Dug
> > 
> > 
> > Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>@w3.org on 08/17/2001 05:02:44 PM
> > 
> > Sent by:  xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> > 
> > 
> > To:   XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> > cc:
> > Subject:  RPC issue: multiple body blocks
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Reading section 7.1, it's hinted that RPC messages are modeled as a
> > single struct in the message (note the use of 'single').
> > 
> > However, I don't see anything explicitly prohibiting multiple body
> > blocks in a RPC message.
> > 
> > While common sense dictates that RPC with multiple body blocks isn't
> > too useful, SOAP does allow them in the definition of a body, and RPC
> > doesn't give any solid guidance.
> > 
> > I'd be more comfortable if we ruled out more than one
> > child of the body when the RPC convention is in use, except when a
> > Fault is present, of course.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> > 
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham
> > http://www.mnot.net/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Mark Nottingham
> http://www.mnot.net/
>  
> 

-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 17:26:37 UTC