RE: Protocol Bindings

Hi Chris,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> Sent: 11 July 2001 22:56
> To: Mark Nottingham
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Protocol Bindings
> 

<snip/>

> > --8<--
> > 
> > A binding provides a means of encapsulating a SOAP message, with the
> > following guarantees;
> > 
> > * messages will be encapsulated completely, so that they are not
> > fragmented at the SOAP layer.
> 
> This part I think is key... e.g. what precisely is the SOAP layer
> or more correctly, what are its boundaries. This is what I believe
> that Stuart, Marc et al were attempting to describe/define in the AM
> and subsequently, in Stuart's comprehensive write-up.

Precisely... yes.

> > * messages will be passed ot the SOAP layer intact, without reordering,
> > encoding or other transformations imposed by the binding.
> 
> Wouldn't a message that has undergone say compression be considered
> to have been transformed by the binding, even if the transformation
> (in this case compression/decompression) were effectively an
> identity transformation?
> 
> Secondly, if I correctly understand Henrik's position a binding
> MAY actually transform the message by inserting headers which
> relate information that is not contained within the message,
> but is available to the software that effects the binding.
> e.g. the "binding" may actually perform as an actor in the SOAP 
> sense. Conversely, a binding may consume header blocks that
> are targetted to it, thus effectively transforming the message.

Yes... I think a key question here is whether a binding, particularly a
so-called 'nested-binding' (Henrik's term) is or is not allowed to add
things inside the SOAP envelope eg. attachment, message-id's,
sequence-numbers... these elements being (conceptually) filtered back out
again before the recieved message is passed from the binding into the 'SOAP
Layer'.

<snip/>

Received on Thursday, 12 July 2001 07:42:09 UTC