FW: Manifest Element - Where located? - 2

[Marc Breissinger <marcb@webmethods.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrews, Jerry [mailto:jerry.andrews@commerceone.com]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 7:22 PM
To: 'Marc Breissinger'
Subject: RE: Manifest Element - Where located? - 2


...and I'd like to point out, for your consideration and the committee's,
that from the implementation standpoint, it's a lot easier to deal with the
message if it's reliably found in one and only one place (e.g. an attachment
with mime type <mumble>, or in the body of a SOAP message, but not both).

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Breissinger [mailto:marcb@webmethods.com]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 3:14 PM
To: christopher ferris; Burdett, David
Cc: ian.c.jones@bt.com; ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: Manifest Element - Where located? - 2


I'm going to weigh in on Ian's side on this one.  I believe that we should
"keep it simple" by spcifying no application payload be allowed in the SOAP
Body.  That's a perfectly legal thing to do as Rich Salz noted.  If we
wanted header and payload in the same XML document, why was there no "body"
element in the original ebXML message structure?  Answer: we didn't want
them in the same XML document for good reasons.

Chris, you wrote:

> ... the "payload" is the perview of the designer of the
> business process (and the message content) ...

and I wholeheartedly agree.  However, while the payload content is the
purview of the BP designer, the way in which that content is packaged into
the ebXML message is *not*.  That is our domain and we should strive to be
as explicit and as deterministic as possible.  Leaving packaging decisions
up to individual business domain experts can only lead to an increase in
complexity and a corresponding decrease in interoperability.

This same issue arises with the handling of multiple payloads within a
single message.  Should we specify that there can be only one payload part
that can contain many fully qualified ebXML messages (as we used to) or do
we move to the flat model shown in SOAP w/Attachments examples?  Or do we
allow both?  Again, I believe we need to be explicit here and pick one and
force the business domain experts to follow a single packaging scheme.  In
this particular case, I don't care which we pick, but IMHO believe we should
only pick *one*.

marc

-----Original Message-----
From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 2:07 PM
To: Burdett, David
Cc: ian.c.jones@bt.com; ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: Manifest Element - Where located? - 2


This is already provided for as the Reference xlink:href is an URI
value which includes the xpath/xpointer subset of URI values.

Cheers,

Chris

"Burdett, David" wrote:
>
> I agree with Chris. We can't stop people putting payload in the body. In
> fact, I think we should explicity allow it as then the TRP specs could be
> used more easily by the SOAP community who put payloads in the SOAP body.
>
> So, all we need to do is allow the manifest to reference an element in an
> XML document using XPATH and I think we would be OK.
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 10:22 AM
> To: ian.c.jones@bt.com
> Cc: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: Re: Manifest Element - Where located? - 2
>
> Ian,
>
> Since the "payload" is the perview of the designer of the
> business process (and the message content), and since we are
> complying explicitly with the SOAP1.1 and SOAP with Attachments
> specifications, I don't see how we can preclude any payload
> content from the SOAP-ENV:Body element.
>
> IN any event, as long as the payload content is referenced
> in the Manifest (as it is intended) then the issue
> is moot (IMHO) because it makes no difference as to what and where
> the references resolve.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> ian.c.jones@bt.com wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> >         Here is the corrected version of the text I just e-mailed.  Hit
> send
> > before running the spell check sorry!
> >
> >         I am concerned about having "real" payload in the body as we
then
> > have inconsistent handling of payloads.  So, if you have one XML message
> you
> > COULD put it in the body provided you do not need any special characters
> > etc. BUT if you need special characters or more than one message what do
> you
> > do? Put them all in attachments, put the first in the body, etc.  IMHO
we
> > should Keep It Simple, all payloads in the attachments as they are not
for
> > the MSH it just needs to pass them on and leave all the MESH "stuff" in
> the
> > SOAP header and body as needed.
> >
> > Ian Jones
> >
> > Ian Jones
> > Email: ian.c.jones@bt.com
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org


------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org