RE: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns

This statement is not clear.  It states:

>>>The application programmer shouldn't care 
>>>what the underlying protocol is, only that
>>>it supports the semantics <=========== shouldn't the "it" in this
sentence be replaced with "the binding to the underlying protocol"
>>>required by the application.

Later, another statement refers to a binding providing the request response
mep:

>>>if 
>>>the application only requires a 
>>>request-response message exchange pattern 
>>>then it would work over any binding that 
>>>supports request-response.

Given this, the statement should read....

The application programmer shouldn't care 
what the underlying protocol is, only that
the binding to the underlying protocol supports the semantics 
required by the application. e.g. if 
the application only requires a 
request-response message exchange pattern 
then it would work over any binding that 
supports request-response.


Marc - Is this what you intended to say?

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 9:09 AM
To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
Cc: Marc Hadley; Kumeda; Marwan Sabbouh; Williams, Stuart;
xml-dist-app@w3.org; xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns


+1

Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:

> Mark Hadley writes:
> 
> 
>>>The application programmer shouldn't care 
>>>what the underlying protocol is, only that
>>>it supports the semantics 
>>>required by the application. e.g. if 
>>>the application only requires a 
>>>request-response message exchange pattern 
>>>then it would work over any binding that 
>>>supports request-response.
>>>
> 
> +1.  Exactly. 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2001 12:50:30 UTC