- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:25:21 -0700
- To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Williams Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I actually don't think it matters whether our spec is packaged in one or two documents. What to me is the important thing is the scope of the binding. I absolutely agree with the scope of the BEEP binding in that it talks exactly about how BEEP core is mapped to TCP and how BEEP core may take advantage of TCP features with an eye for performance. Note that BEEP defines much more than SOAP core does (everything that relates to channels etc) so it is to be anticipated that their binding is much bigger. As an example, you can find a SOAP-RP/DIME binding to TCP at http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/xml_wsspecs/soap-rp/default.html#N0700 Henrik >Do you think we should be doing something similar? > >Jean-Jacques. > >"Williams, Stuart" wrote: > >> I was recently referred to section 2.5 of the Beep Core spec. It's an >> enviably concise and compact definition of what BEEP expects of a >> mapping to a particular transport service.
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 16:58:37 UTC