[exprla-devel] RE: [xpl] Output mechanisms: SOAP intro

[reid_spencer <ras...@re...>]

--- In xpl-dev@y..., "Richard Anthony Hein" <935551@i...> wrote:
I agree with your views on transparency of SOAP within the XPL 
framework
100%, Kurt.

How much of this will be handled by XPL processes, and how much by the
transport protocol?  WorldOS, or BXXP - (if it becomes opensource)?  
Or we
can take the best of both and modify WorldOS - Lucas, what's your 
opinion on
this?

Richard A. Hein

-----Original Message-----
From: cagle@o... [mailto:cagle@o...]
Sent: July 7, 2000 12:51 PM
To: xpl@e...
Subject: Re: [xpl] Output mechanisms: SOAP intro


  My primary misgivings with SOAP have more to do with their use as an
interface into COM components and less as a messaging protocol (it's 
pretty
good in that respect), and then, as mentioned, primarily because of
1)security, 2) pushing of a procedural model into the declarative 
space of
distributed applications, but the latter is just a personal bias.

  I would also point out that as far as interoperability goes, the 
SOAP
message should be largely transparent to XPL users -- it should be 
generated
and consumed by the XPL framework, not explicitly written by the XPL 
users
themselves. This is analogous to something like Visual Basic, where 
the
complexity of COM is largely hidden behind the language framework of 
Visual
Basic. Thus an XPL object class would handle the eventing through SOAP
mechanisms, but you as an XPL developer would never see these 
messages --
you'd just write event handlers for intercepting them and rely on the
framework to send the event messages to you.

  -- Kurt
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Richard Anthony Hein
    To: xpl@e...
    Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 9:11 AM
    Subject: RE: [xpl] Output mechanisms: SOAP intro


    Jonathan,

    Certainly SOAP is powerful.  Plus it's getting worked on by many 
groups,
including the Apache XML project.  I have no problems with SOAP, and 
it
would be my first choice at this point.  However, let's not confuse 
the
issue with XSL.  XSL isn't for components to communicate.  SOAP and 
XML-RPC
are.  Whatever the standard accepted by the community will be, and I 
am
betting on SOAP at this point, we should use of course.  SOAP will 
allow XPL
to talk to CORBA, COM and Java Beans.  It also will facilitate 
communication
between XPL objects if necessary, but I am not sure it will be.  Then 
again,
if we want COM, Beans, and CORBA to talk to XPL objects, then yes, it 
will
have to be wrapped in standard "envelopes" such as SOAP.

    So, in the XPL programming context, making a SOAP envelope should 
be
simple as possible.  Some people however, have expressed concern over 
the
fact that SOAP requires that you make the document root of your 
document the
SOAP envelope.  Some people think that this degrades the document, by
requiring actual changes to the document.  Mind you, when the raw 
document
is packaged in the SOAP env. it's only then that it has to have 
changes,
then when it's opened on the receiving end you should be able to 
strip off
the envelope and have the normal document.  So I am not sure why 
there is so
much concern about this.

    Kurt's misgivings are understandable.  How can we facilitate a 
security
model to protect against improper usage of the local objects?  I am 
hoping
that this issue is resolved soon before SOAP is widely accepted.  But 
I am
certain it can be overcome.  In the meantime, what should we do?  
Wait,
build a security model for XPL usage of SOAP, dump SOAP, or just 
trust it
will all be OK?

    This question needs to be addressed before we start talking about 
how we
are going to facilitate communication between heterogeneous objects.

    Richard A. Hein
      -----Original Message-----
      From: me@m... [mailto:me@m...]On
Behalf Of Jonathan Burns
      Sent: July 7, 2000 10:28 AM
      To: xpl@e...
      Subject: [xpl] Output mechanisms: SOAP intro



      Back a couple of threads ago, Richard and I were debating XPL
Requirements for output
      mechanisms or formats. XSL? Remote Procedure Calls?
      I mentioned SOAP partly because Kurt had expressed misgivings 
that it
was TOO
      powerful, providing access to local objects.

      Anyway, I've just found this nicely-written  introduction , on 
the
Microsoft developers'
      network site.

      The bottom line seems to be, that whatever will receive an http 
POST
message can
      be addressed via SOAP, and quite simply.



--

Jonathan Burns; saski@w...
        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      xpl-unsubscribe@o...



    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    xpl-unsubscribe@o...




----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
--



----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
--
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  xpl-unsubscribe@o...
--- End forwarded message ---