Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Michael Brennan wrote: > >... > I think there are two advantages to this approach over having the action > specified at the protocol layer. > 1) You don't have to redefine how to represent the action for each protocol > binding used. > 2) You can have richer messages where actions apply to portions of a > message, rather than just one action for the entire message. > > However, this approach also has a disadvantage: > 1) A message dispatcher must sniff the content of the message to discern its > intent. A protocol-level indicator can help optimize some level of message > dispatching, where dispatching can be done without having to parse the XML > in the message. Plus you've mixed "protocol" (actions) with "data" (the content of the message). This makes it hard to use predefined vocabularies like RSS or some industry-specific one. I think that's a big problem. Using a model where the action is separate from the message, you can easily apply the same action to RSS, XHTML, or HumanML ;). Paul Prescod
|
