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

[Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>]

First glance at the relevant pages says that both SOAP-Attachments and DIME
are in the process of being standarized, but aren't standards yet. Largest
positive for DIME would appear to be support for protocols other than SOAP
(remember that WSDL does not require SOAP be used to carry the messages)
while the largest positive for SOAP-Attachments would appear to be its
support in the Java web stack (ie. JAX-RPC). In both cases these result in
the message carrying a URI that resolves to another part in the message ...
would we have to specify one or the other as the transport mechanism, or
could we have a place for the URI in the message and point to both of these
as possible ways to carry the blob in the message?

As to Alejandro's #2, my understanding of Carsten's comment is that the
Producer could bundle things up in a single package when that makes sense.
Also, I would guess that bundling static files like gifs would not be such
an example as this significantly reduces the value of caching on the
Consumer for such resources, but that a dynamically generated dataset (eg.
a xforms model) used by the markup might.


                                                                                                                    
                      Alejandro                                                                                     
                      Abdelnur                 To:                                                                  
                      <alejandro.abdeln        cc:       WSRP-Markup <wsrp-markup@lists.oasis-open.org>             
                      ur@sun.com>              Subject:  Re: [wsrp-markup] Handling of attachments and/or large     
                                                markup responses                                                    
                      07/22/2002 11:01                                                                              
                      AM                                                                                            
                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                    



Carsten,

Interesting, now I have 2 questions.

(1) I've just looked at the JAX-RPC spec and it requires SOAP-
attachments for handling attachments. Would you give a pointer to the
interoperability information you are mentioning?

(2) Are you suggesting that a producer would bundle up all static
resources with the getFragment response and the consumer would cache
them so when the call of the client comes to the consumer -to the
resource [proxy] URL- the consumer has already the resource and it does
not need to make a call to the producer? Something like a pro-active cache?

Alejandro


JAX-RPC defines SOAP-Attachment

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>