Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Re: [wsrp-markup] Handling of attachments and/orlarge markup responses

[Alejandro Abdelnur <alejandro.abdelnur@sun.com>]

I agree with Mike's comment on requiring SOAP attachments for the
content returned by getMarkup if we support SOAP attachments.

About the encoding, I'm inclined to SOAP-attachements. On reason is that
is based on MIME multipart encoding, while SOAP-attachment is tied to
SOAP, MIME is not. So I could se using MIME encoding using other
transport protocols than SOAP. Another reason to consider is that
JAX-RPC -the Java standard for Web Services RPC- requires
SOAP-attachments and unless I'm mistaken many of us will likely use Java.

Regards.

Alejandro

Carsten Leue wrote:
  > Mike - yes, in terms of performance it would make sense to transfer the
  > content and/or resources in a more efficient way than embedding it 
in the
  > SOAP body. Nevertheless we will still need to encode/decode them in
one or
  > the other way.
  > The main problem I see here is the lack of a standard that is currently
  > widely implemented on the J2EE and .NET side. That's why I anted to
ask the
  > group if they think that SOAP attachments of DIME will be the 
standard to
  > concentrate on.
  >
  >
  > Best regards
  > Carsten Leue
  >
  > -------
  > Dr. Carsten Leue
  > Dept.8288, IBM Laboratory Böblingen , Germany
  > Tel.: +49-7031-16-4603, Fax: +49-7031-16-4401
  >
  >
  >
  > |---------+----------------------------->
  > |         |           Michael Freedman  |
  > |         |           <Michael.Freedman@|
  > |         |           oracle.com>       |
  > |         |                             |
  > |         |           07/24/2002 02:01  |
  > |         |           AM                |
  > |---------+----------------------------->
  >
 
 >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  >   |

           |
  >   |       To:       interfaces <wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org>

          |
  >   |       cc:       WSRP-Markup <wsrp-markup@lists.oasis-open.org>

           |
  >   |       Subject:  Re: [wsrp-markup] Handling of attachments and/or
large markup responses
          |
  >   |

           |
  >   |

           |
  >
 
 >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  >
  >
  >
  > Carsten,
  >    Besides the size issue you raise isn't there also a raw performance
  > issue (regardless of size)?  I.e. soap attachments
  > mean we don't have to marshal/unmarshal (and potentially decode) any
  > content hence performs best?  If so, shouldn't we be
  > considering requiring the use of soap attachments for transferring all
  > content from getmarkup?
  >     -Mike-
  >
  >
  > Carsten Leue wrote:
  >
  >
  >>I would like to open a discussion thread on the handling of attachments
  >
  > and
  >
  >>(possibly large) markup responses in WSRP.
  >>In some cases it will be necessary to transport large amounts of data in
  >>the context of a WSRP SOAP request. This occurs when
  >>- uploading a file (currently part of the request context)
  >>- returning markup (currently the markup is just a string. In some cases
  >>this might become large (e.g. > 100KB))
  >>- retuning state from the producer to the consumer
  >>
  >>encoding such large data blobs in SOAP message may pose problems, at
  >
  > least
  >
  >>in SOAP4J ist seems as if it was not possible to transfer more than 50KB
  >
  > in
  >
  >>a SOAP message.
  >>I would propose that we define the transfer of blobs like the file 
upload
  >>via an attachment mechanism. The two standards that are of interest are
  >>SOAP-Attachments (http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments)
  >>DIME
  >>(
  >
  >
http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/understanding/gxa/default.asp?pull=/library/en-us/dnglobspec/html/dimeindex.asp
  > )
  >
  >>The latter seems to be the most interoperable one. What is the 
opinion of
  >>the comittee?
  >>
  >>If we agree on using attachments then we could allow this also as an
  >
  > option
  >
  >>for embedding resources (images, etc) in the returned markup in addition
  >
  > to
  >
  >>letting the consumer proxy these resources or embedding a direct link.
  >
  > Any
  >
  >>opinions on this?
  >>
  >>Best regards
  >>Carsten Leue
  >>
  >>-------
  >>Dr. Carsten Leue
  >>Dept.8288, IBM Laboratory Böblingen , Germany
  >>Tel.: +49-7031-16-4603, Fax: +49-7031-16-4401
  >>
  >>----------------------------------------------------------------
  >>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
  >>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
  >
  >
  >
  > ----------------------------------------------------------------
  > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
  > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > ----------------------------------------------------------------
  > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
  > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>