- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:34:55 -0400
- To: Marwan Sabbouh <ms@mitre.org>
- Cc: Kumeda <kumeda@atc.yamatake.co.jp>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
Marwah Sabbouh writes: >> It seems to me that the SOAP application >> programmer still needs ( and wants) to specify the protocol >> he needs to use. Perhaps this is the essence of the disagreement. When I write a program to read a file, I typically don't know at the time I write and compile the program whether I will read from a hard drive or a floppy, NTFS vs. FAT or whatever. Of course, when I run the program, it will be one or the other. Indeed, sometimes the same program on Unix can read from a socket, pipe or tape drive too. The general notions of Open/Close/Read/Write are analagous to our binding framework: they state what's common across all these diverse data management systems. The mechanisms of the binding framework allow a similar and very important late coupling for SOAP applications. With respect, I claim that in many cases I do _not_ want to hard code knowledge of the transport into my application business logic. I want to say: "send this envelope as a soap request, using whatever transport is appropriate." I expect that some middleware, not specified in SOAP, but very possibly some combination of UDDI and WSDL will allow me at deployment time or runtime (long after the application is coded and compiled) to figure out which transport each of my partners is using. So, I might use Request/Resp over http to reach some partners, and Request/Resp over MQSeries to reach those with whom I have set up such a link. I do _NOT_ want to recode my application when switching from one supplier to another: I expect Request/Resp to look the same over both, and I expect middleware to make the transport binding switch for me, just as the OS and filesystem know whether to go to the floppy or the harddrive. I think this flexibility is powerful and important in practice. I can see why, if you are not interested in these scenarios, the binding framework would be of less use. Some of us very much want to build applications in this manner and therefore look to the binding framework to provide the coordination across bindings. I hope this makes sense. Thank you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 22:51:29 UTC