Re: Protocol Bindings

+1

Marc Hadley wrote:
> 
> I think we are confusing two quite different things here. For a while
> now I've been uncomfortable with the notion that "everything is a
> binding" such that e.g. SOAP with attachments (MIME) is treated the same
> way as HTTP. IMO we have two separate concepts:
> 
> (i) Packaging Format
> In this category I would put MIME (SOAPwA), DIME, ...
> 
> (ii) Transport.
> In this category I would put HTTP, SMTP, BEEP, TCP, ...
> 
> The key difference I think is that transports provide for actual message
> movement and hence require discusssion of things like endpoint address
> format, message exchange pattern, connection/channel management, ...
> Packaging formats are completely agnostic in all of these areas
> 
> In many case we will want to combine things from both categories and in
> this case the following rules seem to apply:
> 
> (a) Packaging formats can be nested in any given message exchange. e.g.
> one could put SOAP in MIME in DIME.
> (b) 1 (and only 1) transport can be used in any given message exchange.
> i.e. it makes no sense to nest one transport in another. I'm ignoring
> protocol tunneling here since this is transparent to transport clients.
> (c) If we are thinking in terms of nesting then the transport must be
> the "outer" layer.
> 
> I think that mixing up packaging and transport under the single
> umberalla of "binding" only makes things more complex for us. There are
> real substantial differences between packaging and transport and we
> should recognise and make use of them.
> 
> Comments ?
> 
> Marc.
> 
> --
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
> Tel: +44 1252 423740
> Int: x23740