• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:25:42 -0500

Thanks Henrik.

Ok for messaging and again, for central standards shared across the
uberSystem.  Probably not so 
good for database management of applications hosted on that system.

This is a juicy topic for those who like distributed chaos and systems 
that run best on the edge of turbulence.

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@i...
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~cbullard/lensongs.ram

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h

-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:frystyk@m...]

In other words, in SOAP, a party declares the features that is either a)
required or b) optional in the message and the receiving end can either
take it or leave it. This mechanism can of course also be used to
negotiate (via some "upgrade" mechanism) jumping to another envelope
namespace entirely which covers adding breaking features to the SOAP
envelope itself.

We do therefore not need to have any other versioning model than: "look in
the message".

• Prev by Date: RE: Namespace and Versioning
• Next by Date: Re: Expat & utf-16
• Previous by thread: RE: Namespace and Versioning
• Next by thread: RE: Namespace and Versioning
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread