Re: XMLP-UC-6 reformulation - simple streaming use case

On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 09:01  AM, 
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Maybe Mark's proposal below is indeed the simple 80/20 we seek, but I'm
> not completely convinced it goes into enough detail, or that we'll find
> consitency in users' needs if we look for such detail.  I note also 
> that
> MTOM offers a model, a serialization trick, and an HTTP binding using 
> the
> trick.  The requirements for the 3 need not be the same.  Consider the
> first and last, how about a requirement that says:

Just to be clear, I wasn't making a proposal as such, just trying to 
see if I understood Jacek's wording.


> * The MTOM abstract inclusion feature must not preclude the creation 
> of a
> variety of bindings, each of which might support one or more styles of
> streaming as needed in various use cases.
>
> * The HTTP binding provided with MTOM either (a) need not be optimized 
> for
> streaming or ( b) SHOULD provide for accessibity to non-optimzed 
> envelope
> information ahead of the serializations of large binary objects and 
> SHOULD
> further  provide for streaming in the case that only one large object 
> has
> been optimized.
>
> I know these are requirements, not use cases, but that's how I'm 
> thinking
> about it.

I like doing this in requirements rather than use cases.

Regarding the second requirement, (b) looks good, but I'm still not 
sure what "streaming" means here. Would this be satisfied by the use of 
HTTP chunking, for example? Would the fact that MIME requires 
pre-calculation of a delimiter be considered an impediment to 
satisfying this requirement?

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems