- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:19:26 -0800
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Nov 18, 2003, at 12:13 PM, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > > * A lot of the intro and context-setting from MTOM is missing, at least > for now. For example, it doesn't state clearly that typing > information is > not preserved, and that the full DM is not transmitted. > > * There seems to be a mixture of DM and Infoset terminology. Yes; I didn't know enough about DM to accurately specify things in the time I had. Also, out use of DM, as I understand it, is quite subtle; we're only using mechanisms that are unique to DM for optimisation candidates, whereas our handling of the rest of the document explicitly doesn't use typed information. > * I think that to have a full proposal, we will need to do a > corresponding > rewrite of MTOM, referring to Miffy where appropriate. I think parts > of > MTOM are still needed to describe the relationship to SOAP processing, > possible new HTTP binding, etc. I also think there would be an > opportunity to lift some of the pertinent text from MTOM and adapt it > to > Miffy, as I think that in some cases MTOM states more carefully what is > going on with the optimizations (or if not, we should fix it.) Agreed. I suspect that the resulting document would be quite small, because it's just an explanation of how to use MIFFY in the context of SOAP. > I completely understand why Mark didn't tackle these things in a first > pass, and I think he's given us an excellent start. For the record, > I'm > OK with the general Miffy direction, at least as something to explore, > if > that's the will of the group, or I can easily live with a SOAP-only > solution for now. I am a bit concerned about how we balance > investigations of Miffy with David's suggestion of MTOM last call > coming > out of the F2F. I think that getting some of the MTOM details to last > call state will be a bit tight even without Miffy, though we can > probably > do it with some effort (also on my to do list is to try to respond to > David's call for outstanding issues.) I don't see how we can do a > proper > Miffy refactoring to Last Call quality by the F2F. Even if we could, > there would be something to be said for gathering comments informally > for > a week or two, to at least get a sense that we have met the concerns of > those who wanted a more general optimization scheme usable outside of > SOAP. Agreed, although I question whether Last Call by the F2F is a reasonable or necessary goal. Generally, I'm all for getting this done quickly, but a few extra weeks won't make much of a difference, surely, especially if the content is much more modular and easier to understand? -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 17:20:15 UTC