- From: Oisin Hurley <ohurley@iona.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:24:16 -0000
- To: "Orchard, David" <dorchard@jamcracker.com>, <dick@8760.com>, "XP-PUBLIC" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> XML as a spec was produced in 98. It provided > runtime syntax. > It did not need an object model (DOM?) API > or an in memory model (infoset) > to be successful. Of course :) This is because XML is a markup language, not an invocable entity. > These things were required, but came later. > In the same > way, I would like the same for sending objects in SOAP. I fully > admit there > is an alternate approach, which is to define the algebra or object model > first, followed by the syntax. Given the constraints on our WG's charter > and the syntax before it, the former approach of syntax first seems more > suitable. I think you will have to change the term that you use - an object is a very well-defined programming entity that has certain properties and facilities. Maybe you wish to create a syntax that will impose an object model. I think what you think is an object and what I think is an object are two different things. > I don't understand your comment about using SOAP headers to pass "objects" > or blobs. I could base64 encode all my binary objects, but that doesn't > meet the requirement of being able to attach an object without > rewriting it. I don't know what this means. How do you rewrite an object? Do you mean that it is serialized or marshalled in some way? > This has been helpful as it has called out a requirement: It shall be > possible to send and receive non-xml information without requiring an XP > Processor to rewrite the outbound or inbound object. That's in the requirements document for extensibility. > If you are uncomfortable with the term object to refer to some component > that has a structure semanticly and syntacticly opaque to XP, do > you have an > alternate? I find object to be sufficient, knowing that it does not meet > the classical O-O or COM definitions of objects. Perhaps resource? Whatever you wish :) But do not call it an object - terminology is there to assure precision, not confuse. cheers --oh
Received on Friday, 16 February 2001 16:23:57 UTC