[BXXPwg] Draft Minutes of last week's meeting
Tue, 08 Aug 2000 14:41:16 +0100
At 08:26 PM 8/6/00 -0700, Steve Harris wrote:
> > 2. Piggybacks - an XML-based profile is allowed to include an encapsulated
> > message as part of channel creation. This piggybacking capability saves
> > a round trip time, and that was thought to be a good thing for some
> > transport mappings, e.g., T/TCP or UDP. However, implementations should
> > not send an "unreasonable" amount of data in the <start>. The consensus
> > of the meeting was to retain piggybacks, and to add text to the
> > specification reminding profile designers that initialization elements
> > should be reasonable in size.
>Ouch! I had high hopes for seeing these "piggybacks" stricken from the
>Again, I don't think that the *amount* of data is the issue. It's the
>fact that the data is arbitrary XML. We've mentioned this difficulty
>here, but it bears repeating.
I did wonder if this might be specified on a per-profile basis, so that not
every application would have to code for the more complex case if they
don't (directly) use profiles with piggyback data.
>A more valid idea is to provide "constructor arguments" to the
>channel. That's what I took the <start> content to be since the first
>time I read the BXXP spec. Constraining channel creation with the
>presence of certain "arguments" seems like a useful idea. I just think
>we need some other ideas of how to provide those arguments. I'm still
>thinking of what to propose.
Maybe this too could be a profile-dependent option; i.e. a profile
specifies the allowable forms of XML <start> data?