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

> I believe the SOAP 1.1 specification confused matters by 
> including sections
> on RPC and encoding. 

John,

I agree 100% with what you say in this email.
Thanks for saying it !
 
My company has large problems because of the 
misunderstanding generated by the sections
on RPC and encoding and I heard tons of other
companies complaining about the same problem.

Best regards,
Dana


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
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 15:49:33 UTC