I understood you Rich. Yes you are right that one can implement a
document-literal SOAP binding instead of RPC (as Microsoft is forcing
everyone to do). However, this doesn't really change the essense of the
debate.
Did you read my compromise, which I believe Trevor was also hinting at ?
I still need your votes.
Ed
P.S. I agree on what can be done in the mapping area, but I'd prefer to make
things as easy as possible for my clients, and I would hate to have to chose
between a standard and my clients' satisfaction.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Salz [mailto:]
Sent: November 6, 2003 10:12 PM
To: Edward Shallow
Cc:
Subject: RE: [dss] Core versus Extended Profile Handling
> I understand your desire in making it simple to map this into native
> object-model RPC.
>
> <ed>That is because that is all DSS is !!! A signature creation and
> verification request mechanism.</ed>
>
> I don't share the desire. Or rather, I see that as less important
> than getting a real extensible protocol specified.
>
> <ed>The thinness and therefore value of what is left is scary to
> me.</ed>
I think I was misunderstood.
I was saying that this doesn't have to be RPC. It can be document-oriented.
I don't see a requirement that the XML messages that are exchanged must
easily and strictly map to a Java, C#, or C++ object without any intervening
work.
It certainly is a synchronous request/response protocol, but it can fit the
new service-oriented architecture as well.
Hope this is more clear.
/r$
--
Rich Salz Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dss/members/leave_workgroup.php
.
