[e-lang] [RFP] cross-language object serialization (E
Mark S. Miller
markm at caplet.com
Tue Jan 21 02:33:56 UTC 2003
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
More information about the Squeak-dev