- From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:40:49 -0400
- To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- CC: Frank DeRose <frankd@tibco.com>, Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3B2AAB11.24E1254B@east.sun.com>
+1 Doug Davis wrote: > > I agree that vague areas of the spec should be cleared up. > In this case though, there are lots of things that are not part > of the core spec. Digital Signature isn't part of the core spec > but is allowable, right? I see boxcarring as the same type > of thing in that the spec isn't going to talk about it (except > to say it isn't going to talk about it 8-) but that doesn't mean > it can't be done - they're just not going to tell us how to do > it. You're equating "not part of the core spec" with "not > allowed" and I don't think they're the same thing. When the > spec disallows something a "MUST NOT" is used. > -Dug > > "Frank DeRose" <frankd@tibco.com>@w3.org on 06/15/2001 06:53:12 PM > > Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org > > To: Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" > <moreau@crf.canon.fr> > cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org> > Subject: RE: issue 78 > > Doug, > > The passage you refer to reads: > > "A major design goal for SOAP is simplicity and extensibility. This means > that there are several features from traditional messaging systems and > distributed object systems that are not part of the core SOAP > specification. > Such features include > > ... > > Boxcarring or batching of messages" > > This seems to me just to say that boxcarring is not part of the core SOAP > specification. How, then, do you conclude that the SOAP spec allows > boxcarring? My own interpretation of this passage was that the spec did NOT > allow boxcarring. > > So, I draw the following conclusions: > > 1.) The fact that two readers can conclude from the same passage that > boxcarring is allowed (Doug) or not allowed (me) seems to be positive > evidence that the spec is vague (needs to be rewritten) on this point. > 2.) The WG needs to decide whether boxcarring should or should not be > allowed. My own personal opinion is that it should not be allowed (the S in > SOAP stands for "Simple"). But, if the WG decides that it should be > allowed, > the spec should be changed to describe explicitly how boxcarring should be > performed. In particular, as Doug points out, some convention for handling > faults should be supplied. > 3.) If the WG decides that it wants boxcarring, then my proposed rewriting > of Section 7.1 obviously won't do. > > F > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] > > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 3:55 AM > > To: Jean-Jacques Moreau > > Cc: Frank DeRose; xml-dist-app@w3.org > > Subject: Re: issue 78 > > > > > > Yes it does allow it, but it says that it isn't going to > > talk about it [1] (look for boxcarring). I believe it is > > valid to put multiple RPC calls in the body (each one being > > its own body element) - if fact you can even put each RPC > > as a separate header - there are lots of ways to do it. > > But, the spec doesn't tell you how to handle things like > > faults (or multiple faults) or rollback if the 3rd rpc > > fails. So, if someone wants to do this it would be up > > to them to decide how these issues are handled - as long > > as they conform to the spec. > > > > -Dug > > > > [1] > > http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/06/01/xmlp-soap-02.html#_Toc478383487 > > > > > > > > "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>@w3.org on 06/15/2001 03:41:58 > > AM > > > > Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org > > > > > > To: Frank DeRose <frankd@tibco.com> > > cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org > > Subject: Re: issue 78 > > > > > > > > Frank, > > > > Am I missing something obvious, or does the spec allow you to have two > RPC > > requests within a single SOAP message? (I am also wondering why the usual > > QName+actor dispatching mechanism does not work here.) > > > > BTW, in your example, why couldn't "id1" be a header? > > > > Frank DeRose wrote: > > > > > <SOAP-ENV:Body > > > SOAP-ENV:encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"/> > > > <SOAP-ENC:int id="i1" SOAP-ENC:root='0'>34.5</SOAP-ENC:int> > > > <m:GetLastTradePriceResponse xmlns:m="Some-URI"> > > > <PriceAndVolume> > > > <LastTradePrice href="#i1"/> > > > <DayVolume>10000</DayVolume> > > > </PriceAndVolume> > > > </m:GetLastTradePriceResponse> > > > </SOAP-ENV:Body> > > > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 20:45:28 UTC