At 05:15 PM 1/20/2003 Monday, David Chizmadia wrote:
>> What we're looking for is a mapping from IDL to XML. The spec says
>> this is covered by the MOF and XMI, but I haven't been able to
>> find it yet. Those two are awfully large.
>
>You're correct - in both the goal and the state of affairs. 
>Getting the IDL to XML mapping involves using the UML Profile 
>for CORBA, inserting the CORBA Type system metamodel into a 
>MOF tool and having that tool generate the XML.
>
>Obviously not suitable. I'm sorry for the mistake.
>
>There is an emerging specification for Interoperation Between
>CORBA and SOAP/WSDL, which is defining a specific mapping between
>IDL and WSDL, from which a nominal XML mapping emerges. But this 
>is still too hard.
>[...]
>> Note that I am not saying that doc-code has no technical
>> advantages over CDR. I believe it does.
>
>I'm inclined to believe that you're correct. At the very least, 
>WOS enjoys the internal coherence that can only come from not
>being subjected to committee development. [...]


Tyler, I would like to hear your list of technical advantages.

But in any case, based on the current state of the discussion, I think the 
last non-WOS contender has been eliminated. Until and unless a surprising 
problem shows up, I'm willing to declare that the next CapTP will use WOS as 
its serialization format, in both its doc-code-binary and its XML-textual 
forms. Given this, I think that CapTP, like WOMP, should use Doc to define 
its message layer as well. A CapTP connection should start in Doc-XML-text 
mode, and we need to define some textual negotiation for switching to 
doc-code binary format. How does WOMP deal with this format negotiation issue?

Rob, does all this sound acceptable on the Squeak-E end?


----------------------------------------
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

        Cheers,
        --MarkM