- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:31:17 -0400
- To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
- CC: Marwan Sabbouh <ms@mitre.org>, 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
Nicely put. +1 Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote: > 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 Friday, 26 October 2001 10:35:07 UTC