Re: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ?

+1 for John's proposal. I think I'd prefer to replace "architected
extension" with "a set of rules/conventions" to prevent confusion with
SOAP header extensions which I don't think really play a part in the RPC
conventions and encoding rules.

Marc.

John Ibbotson wrote:
> 
> Should RPC be part of the core SOAP specification or an architected
> extension ?
> 
> I believe the SOAP 1.1 specification confused matters by including sections
> on RPC and encoding. Readers of the specification came to the incorrect
> conclusion that SOAP was inextricably linked to RPC. As Henrik pointed out
> inthe early days of the WG, SOAP is really only a single way message with
> RPC being a convention for linking two single way messages into a
> request/response pair together with an encoding mechanism. By removing  RPC
> from the core specification and placing it into a separate extension, we
> have the opportunity to correct the confusion that I believe originates
> from SOAP 1.1.
> 
> There is a second reason for removing RPC from the core specification.
> There is a large body of users (the EDI community via ebXML) for whom RPC
> is not the preferred invocation mechanism. They operate with a document
> exchange model which may include boxcarring of business documents in a
> single message each of which is of equal processing importance. If the WG
> perpetuates the perceived importance of RPC by including it in the core
> specification rather than viewing it as an extension, then acceptance of
> SOAP in some communities may be diminished.
> 
> Comments please,
> John
> 
> XML Technology and Messaging,
> IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park,
> Winchester, SO21 2JN
> 
> Tel: (work) +44 (0)1962 815188        (home) +44 (0)1722 781271
> Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898
> Notes Id: John Ibbotson/UK/IBM
> email: john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com

--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Tel: +44 1252 423740
Int: x23740

Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 11:56:29 UTC