• To: XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Transactional Integrity of Services (SHORT)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:07:49 -0500
• In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0303302001210.30585-100000@f...>

martin@h... writes:
>On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>
>> BEEP did a much nicer job with this stuff, using XML for both headers
>> and (sometimes) content, but keeping them in separate documents.
They
>> demonstrated that XML can useful for protocols work but that you
don't
>> need to confuse XML documents with messages.
>
>sort of like ebXML then? or any SOAP implementation with the payload
>separate from the envelope.

I believe so.  Separate payloads in SOAP still appear to be the
exception, not the rule.



-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org

• References:
  • Re: Transactional Integrity of Services (SHORT)
    • From: <martin@h...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Transactional Integrity of Services (SHORT)
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Transactional Integrity of Services (LONG)
• Previous by thread: Re: Transactional Integrity of Services (SHORT)
• Next by thread: Re: Transactional Integrity of Services (SHORT)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread