Re: Sharing MTOM parts for identical leaf nodes

Jacek Kopecky <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.text.xml.distributed
Organization Systinet Corporation
Message-ID <1065619851.9198.60.camel@localhost>
Noah,

I think this might be useful, but if it opens too many questionable
cases, I'd be happy to disallow this in our serialization spec.

In any case, I don't think the abstract feature needs to be aware of
this. I know you didn't even mention the abstract feature in your text.

Best regards

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect
                   Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/




On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 02:31, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Jacek and I had some private discussion of this over the summer, but I'm
> not sure whether it ever resulted in any public consideration by the WG:
> 
> It occurs to me that in certain use cases the identical large binary might
> logically serve as content to multiple leaf nodes.  This could in principle
> be done by reference to headers, but that changes the vocabularies and is
> not in all cases natural.  I wonder whether we should allow a smart MTOM
> implementation to point multiple xbinc:Includes to the same mime part (I.e.
> use the same URI)?  Seems like a win to me, and I can quite easily imagine
> implementations that would know from the construction of the DOM or similar
> structure that the content was identical.
> 
> In any case, I think we should open an issue to make clear what the rule
> is, even if we just clarify that you must not link a given mtom part from
> more than (or perhaps less than?) a single xbinc:Include.  My current
> leaning would be to allow flexibility in both directions.  Multiple
> xbinc:Includes should be able to ref the same content, and it should be
> possible to carry content that is not referenced at all (e.g. to avoid the
> need for reference counting, or to maintain certain kinds of signatures,
> even if a header with a reference is removed.)  That said, I wouldn't
> expect many implementations to avail themselves of the permission to send
> large useless content,  but I think the sharing makes sense.
> 
> New issue?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.