Re: Proposed resolution for issue 440

On 6 Nov 2003, at 17:59, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>> Thanks for clarifying, can you define what you mean by
>> architecturally sound ? Many existing B2B systems do exactly
>> that in, what seems to me, an architecturally sound manner.
>
> To me archtecturally sound means that it composes well with the SOAP
> processing model. I don't believe any of the existing attachment
> technologies fit the bill. Hence MTOM.
>
'Composes well with' or 'is defined solely in terms of'. You seem to be 
leaning towards the latter. Things outside the SOAP processing model 
can still compose well with it.

>>>
>>> SOAP deals in messages that are infosets. If it's outside
>> the infoset
>>> SOAP doesn't know about it.
>>>
>> That doesn't require MTOM to actively prevent inclusion of
>> anything outside the infoset. It can just not talk about it.
>>
>> Here's an example. I have a SOAP message that includes an
>> MTOM reference to a purchase order in XML format. The
>> purchase order includes an application specific reference to
>> some documentation in the form of a HTML document. The HTML
>> document includes an image. My application wants to bundle
>> the whole lot together and send it. Why should MTOM force me
>> to create an Include reference to the HTML document and
>> associated image inside the SOAP message ?
>
> This is exactly the situation the Representations header is designed to
> address.
>
But for this use case I don't *need* the representation header. 
Requiring all attachments to be referenced from the message would 
require me to use it but only to fulfill an unnecessary restriction.

Marc.

--
Marc Hadley <[email protected]>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.