- From: Joseph Hui <jhui@digisle.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:02:33 -0800
- To: "Mountain, Highland M" <highland.m.mountain@intel.com>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Appleton Pete M" <PMAppleton@bemis.com>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> From: Mountain, Highland M [mailto:highland.m.mountain@intel.com] [snip] > >>I'd be quite comfortable to design an application > >>protocol that specifies HTTP as its transport where in-band data > >>(e.g. HTML content) are carried in HTTP bodies, and out-of-band > >>data ( e.g. application-specific content signals) are embedded > >>in HTTP extended headers. > > > Please clarify...where would the SOAP envelope belong in this > approach: > a)in-band data (HTTP body) > b)out-of-band data - SOAP carries application-specific > content signals, > correct? So I was in SOAP (context) and I didn't even know it (when I responded to Mark's new thread). ;-) No matter. I'll do what I can to clarify, by answering the question directly. The SOAP envolope should be the super structure for the in-band and out-of-band data, i.e. data should be contained within the SOAP envelope. It's bad engineering to transfer data of identical PDU type -- in this case, SOAP is the PDU type -- in separate protocols, let alone seperate protocol layers. (SOAP sits above HTTP.) So no. > Are you implying that these should only be handled > by HTTP extended headers? Also no, absolutely not. Doing so will make binding SOAP to other reliable transports (like TCP) infeasible. (TCP's out-of-band (aka urgent) data semantics stink. But that's another story. :-) Hope it helps. Joe Hui Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service ========================================== > > Joe Hui > Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service > ============================================ > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] > > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 11:15 AM > > To: Appleton Pete M > > Cc: highland.m.mountain@intel.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org > > Subject: T is for Transfer > > > > > > > Yes, I do see HTTP as being purely transport. > > > > With all due respect, it doesn't matter how you see it, it > is *not* a > > transport protocol. You can use it this way, the same way I > > can use any > > application protocol as a transport protocol by > disregarding the task > > that the application protocol is trying to coordinate. But > > that doesn't > > make it one. > > > > http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/evaluation. > htm#sec_6_5_3 > > MB > -- > Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. > Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com > http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com > >
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 17:03:04 UTC