> Specifying that SOAP header is also an option, and I don't see why > that > would be ugly, since that's exactly the type of orthogonal information > headers are supposed to carry. And it automatically provides a way to > support other future formats for the attachments. It is the most > extensible > and maintainable solution, because the interface is not disrupted for > new > formats. It gives a little extra work, but it may pay off in the > future.
Yes, I guess that's the way to go. I anyways require a custom header for specifying the format of the attached data (RDF or flat text), so one more or less shouldn't be such a big issue. -- Eric Jain
