- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 18:22:06 -0500
- To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
- Message-id: <09AA56C2-10B0-11D8-8C8B-0003937568DC@sun.com>
On 6 Nov 2003, at 17:59, Martin Gudgin wrote: >> Thanks for clarifying, can you define what you mean by >> architecturally sound ? Many existing B2B systems do exactly >> that in, what seems to me, an architecturally sound manner. > > To me archtecturally sound means that it composes well with the SOAP > processing model. I don't believe any of the existing attachment > technologies fit the bill. Hence MTOM. > 'Composes well with' or 'is defined solely in terms of'. You seem to be leaning towards the latter. Things outside the SOAP processing model can still compose well with it. >>> >>> SOAP deals in messages that are infosets. If it's outside >> the infoset >>> SOAP doesn't know about it. >>> >> That doesn't require MTOM to actively prevent inclusion of >> anything outside the infoset. It can just not talk about it. >> >> Here's an example. I have a SOAP message that includes an >> MTOM reference to a purchase order in XML format. The >> purchase order includes an application specific reference to >> some documentation in the form of a HTML document. The HTML >> document includes an image. My application wants to bundle >> the whole lot together and send it. Why should MTOM force me >> to create an Include reference to the HTML document and >> associated image inside the SOAP message ? > > This is exactly the situation the Representations header is designed to > address. > But for this use case I don't *need* the representation header. Requiring all attachments to be referenced from the message would require me to use it but only to fulfill an unnecessary restriction. Marc. -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 18:22:09 UTC