[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [wsrp-markup] [wsrp][markup] DIME and one essential question
I wanted to follow up with a short comparison of DIME vs SOAP attachments. One of us - Richard Cieply - did this, I appended the results to this email. My summary would be that the use of any kind of attachments would not show up in the WSDL definition of the interface but only in the binding information. I.e. that the choice will not directly affect the specification. However this raises another question: to what level do we want to specify WSRP? Just the interfaces or also the bindings? If we only define the interfaces and not the binding then the consumer would need to generate (on the fly) a proxy for each remote sevice as the binding might be different, e.g. one producer decides to marshal the markup over an attachment another does not. The interface would not be affected thus the producer a WSRP compliant producer. However this would not really be plug-and-play, at least not from my understanding. I assumed that it would be possible to write a "static" proxy that consumes all WSRP compliant WS. With different bindings that would not be possible. What is the opinion of the group? Writeup DIME vs SOAP Attachments by Richard Cieply. 1. 'Politics' Soap Attachments are specified by the W3C and supported by Apache SOAP and Axis. Dime is currently in the Internet Draft phase and I suppose it to become a RFC sooner or later. Currently the MS SOAP Toolkit Version 3.0 supports DIME (and only DIME). Also Axis states to support DIME with its beta3. The API doc specifies some Classes in the org.apache.axis.attachment package to generate DIME multipart messages. Microsoft states that it will concentrate on DIME, it seems to me that they will not be supporting SOAP Attachments in their .NET. Here is a cite from their website: "In the end, the MIME approach to sending SOAP messages with attachments is a technically plausible solution. However, supporting multiple specifications for achieving the same results is costly and potentially confusing. Due to its technical superiority, Microsoft will be motivated to focus on DIME for binary attachments in its future SOAP tools and platforms." and "DIME is a major part of Microsoft's future SOAP and XML Web Service strategy " http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnservice/html/service01152002.asp 2. Dependency on SOAP I'm not sure if I understood this question correctly. SOAP Attachments define a means to transport SOAP messages via MIME multipart/related messages in a way preserving processing a SOAP message as defined in the SOAP1.1 spec. I'm not to deep into the DIME stuff but as far as I understood their examples DIME is a replacement for MIME multipart/related messages. DIME messages may CONTAIN SOAP messages. Thus both are independant on SOAP. I think the other way around the question is more interessting: Does any of these encodings affect SOAP? I'd say 'no' here either. The well known and in SOAP1.1 defined 'href' is used to address a part of a MIME multipart/related or DIME message. It is the task of the SOAP implementation to retrieve these parts from that message. The lingo of SOAP is not affected here. As I said above Axis states to implement both MIME mp/rel and DIME, Microsoft SOAP Toolkit 3.0 implements only DIME. 3. Effects on the wsdl The question here is if the usage of one of the above attachment types will affect our wsdl, say if types/interfaces would change if we prefered the one or the other. Generally the types/messages/port types are not affected by this. It is part of the binding definition to say how the data will be carried on the transport level. The WSDL1.1 spec contains a MIME binding schema. I haven't figured out yet how a DIME binding looks like - I have to check this later. However, whether to use DIME or MIME mp/rel is defined in the binding, so I assume the interfaces would remain the same (say the types/messages/port types). So I would say it is up to the implementations to choose the right way and transport. From the WSRP point of view it seems to me that we don't need to define anything about this in the protocol as it is a transport choice. We could recommend to use DIME because it looks like this is the one which will be supported by both worlds in the future J2EE and .NET. Best regards Carsten Leue ------- Dr. Carsten Leue Dept.8288, IBM Laboratory Böblingen , Germany Tel.: +49-7031-16-4603, Fax: +49-7031-16-4401
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC