axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanj...@opensource.lk>
Subject Re: [Axis2] Re: Full infoset support
Date Fri, 03 Dec 2004 13:27:34 GMT
That's not true Dims .. SOAP doesn't *allow* you to transmit the
full XML Infoset. So if you're doing SAAJ then you will *not*
have the full Infoset present, even though the DOM behind SAAJ
is capable of representing the full Infoset.

The OM as it stands *is* capable of representing *any* XML that
can appear inside <Body>...</Body>.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Davanum Srinivas" <davanum@gmail.com>
To: <axis-dev@ws.apache.org>; "Ajith Ranabahu" <ajith.ranabahu@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Axis2] Re: Full infoset support


> Ajith,
>
> Please remember, if the user wants to do doc/lit by hand....It implies
> he wants to do EVERYTHING possible with XML inside the SOAP Envelope.
> So If you can't do complete XML Infoset there....then OM is useless
> for him. Also remember you can't do SAAJ if OM does not support
> complete XML Infoset.
>
> -- dims
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:20:20 +0600, Ajith Ranabahu
> <ajith.ranabahu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi there Alek,
> > Sorry about the first mail which actually lacked the "Axis2" part. It
> > was sent in by mistake.
> > BTW i think the rationale behind making OM specific should be
> > mentioned in a bit more detail here. This is how I see it so if other
> > guys feel I am wrong please correct me.
> > Ok here goes
> > 1. XML infoset is truly fundamental. No doubt about it. However that
> > fundamentality only plays a role if the tool we are making is pure XML
> > based. In this case our tool (Axis 2 to be specific) is focused into a
> > specific subset of XML which is SOAP. So my point is that what we
> > should be making is a SOAP object model (that is what OM is right
> > now). You can just call it a bear-bones SOAP object model.
> > 2.We want this OM to be light weight. That is why we refrained from
> > the easy choice, making OM on top of something like XOM or JDOM. We
> > can incorporate the differed building capability to such object models
> > without much hassel. However that wont solve our memory footprint
> > problem. Hence OM was written purely from scratch to include the
> > eseential information items and minimize the content in the memory.
> > 3. Well we DO gain a lot, in terms of memory,simplicity and speed by
> > catering for SOAP only. The concern of many people is not another
> > complete XML infoset representation (they already have plenty of
> > choices like DOM,JDOM,XOM or even XML beans which has complete schema
> > support). However there are very few SOAP stacks!
> >
> > Hope this helps to get our rationale through :)
> >
> > On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 03:08:57 -0500, Aleksander Slominski
> >
> >
> > <aslom@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> > > Eran Chinthaka wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >>>for me it is: AXIOM API must support XML Infoset and allow an API
> > > >>>implementation that implements all XML infoset if it finds it
necessary
> > > >>>but default OM implementation is optimized for SOAP.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>i think Web Services are more than just SOAP and precluding use
of
> > > >>>XML/HTTP would be an error (especially that it is so easy to
support).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>the only parts of XML Infoset that we may not want to support are
those
> > > >>>not required by SOAP (mostly related to PIs and DTDs as they are
> > > >>>prohibited in SOAP 1.2 message for details see
> > > >>>http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#soapenv - anything more
excluded? and
> > > >>>comments are allowed just not inside message but in document ...)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>so think it can be simply done by having DTD related properties
> > > >>>empty/default/null (such as those in
> > > >>>http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#infoitem.document) and AXIOM
impl
to
> > > >>>throw exception if it sees DTD (configurable to do so as required
for
> > > >>>SOAP 1.2 ...)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >[Chinthaka] can u all remember the basic concepts we agreed on the
summit.
> > > >One is YAGNI and one other is KISS. So if we just create some support
for
> > > >DTD and PI and just throw an exception, isn't it YAGNI or violating
KISS
> > > >???????
> > > >
> > > >
> > > i regard  XML infoset API as _fundamental_ (so it is YAGNI) and not
> > > something that can be simplified, omitted, or further KISSed.
> > >
> > > this is different from actual OM impls that may chose to not support
> > > something in XML Infoset and throw exception (like in case of SOAP)
> > >
> > > therefore i do not think we differ much - i think XML Infoset API such
> > > as AXIOM should be reflecting XML Infoset element information items
and
> > > properties but implementations can be optimized for subset of XML
> > > Infoset (such as SOAP 1.2 or 1.1).
> > >
> > > however i do not see any considerable gains by fusing SOAP and XML
> > > Infoset APIs together but it will make things bigger and more
> > > complicated ...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > alek
> > >
> > > --
> > > The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ajith Ranabahu
> >
>
>
> -- 
> Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/


Mime
View raw message