Re: Requirements for attachments^H^H^H transport optimisation
Mark Nottingham <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.distributed |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
A better place for this discussion might be the XML Binary Characterisation WG; http://www.w3.org/XML/Binary/ That's not to say that these aren't important considerations for MTOM, but the XBCWG was formed specifically to talk about them. Regards, On Jul 3, 2004, at 7:46 AM, Patrick Steer wrote: > > > > > I think it would be useful to spend a little time identifying the > higher-level requirements surrounding MTOM and the like. These are the > ones I'm aware of: 1) Reduce "bytes on the wire", to improve bandwidth > usage / transport latency. 2) Reduce processing overhead during the > generation and consumption of messages. 3) > Enable selective reordering in the serialization of message > components, to allow flexibility in processing. The third deserves a > bit more explanation; a use case might be placing a large binary file > after the SOAP envelope in the serialized message, so that an > intermediary (or ultimate receiver, for that matter) can act upon the > message before reading all of the bytes off the wire. > > Are there any other high-level requirements associated with the > abstract MTOM feature? I think it would be nice to call these out in > the document at some point. It would also be good to note that these > can all be seen as encoding issues and nothing more. > http://xml.project-web.org > http://ebooks.die-werbung.de > http://project-web.org > > -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems