[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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
|
