RE: RPC issue: multiple body blocks

Just to be clear - do you mean all RPCs or just section 7 RPC?
I sure hope you don't mean *all*.  If someone comes up with a
cool way to solve the issues it'd be sad if SOAP prevented them
from using it.
-Dug

"Frank DeRose" <frankd@tibco.com> on 08/17/2001 06:03:40 PM

To:   "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   "XML Distributed Applications List" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Subject:  RE: RPC issue: multiple body blocks



The RPC task force (sounds official, doesn't it?) is currently looking at
revisions to the spec that would disallow multiple "serialization roots" in
RPC. This would not preclude the use of multi-referenced elements (data
items pointed to from more than one place inside the RPC request/reply)
inside RPC. But, boxcarring with multiple serialization roots would be
prohibited.

I should mention that, AFAIK, there is no way to prohibit someone from
doing
boxcarring inside a single serialization root. That is, I don't think there
is any way to prevent anyone nor should we prevent anyone from having an
RPC
request/response whose one parameter is an array of requests/responses. So,
there is an out.

F

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 2:27 PM
> To: Doug Davis
> Cc: XML Distributed Applications List
> Subject: 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 20:27:09 UTC