- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:39:22 +0200
- 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
+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."
Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 10:39:59 UTC