W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > October 2002

RE: wire stack words and diagram

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:13:59 -0700
Message-ID: <C513FB68F8200244B570543EF3FC65370A855B67@MAIL1.stc.com>
To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

Jean-Jacques,
Here are some comments on the options you mention:

Option 1.
This can be a problem if the SOAP message has to go through different
intermediaries and transports, some of which might not be able to handle the
address information at the protocol level. In that case, it might just be
better to use option 2 throughout.

Option 2.
This is my original scenario, and the reason I brought it up is because it
seems to imply an interaction between binding and headers which, in my view,
is not well addressed in the current SOAP spec (and you might agree, since
you are using the words "I think" in your response).

Option 3.
Could this case still be classified as a request-response MEP, or would it
become a collection of two one-way MEPs? (In your original note you said
that MEPs are supported by bindings only).


Ugo

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:56 AM
To: Ugo Corda
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org; Hugo Haas
Subject: Re: wire stack words and diagram


As all SOAP 1.2 bindings, the MOM-based binding would be expected 
to make the sender's address available via the 
reqres:ImmediateSender property. If that was not the return 
address, the return address could be carried in a binding 
specific manner, for example via a header field of the underlying 
protocol. The EMail binding shows how you can do this for the 
Correlation feature[1].

Rather than implementing the ReturnAddress feature via a binding, 
one could implement it via a SOAP Module, as you are pointing 
out. Bindings are not supposed to consumme or otherwise process 
application modules (headers that are normally processed by 
applications); but bindings are allowed, I think, to augment the 
infoset to transport, and so a binding might very well decide to 
insert its own header before sending the message, that header 
being consummed by the receiving binding, and made available to 
the application via a specific property, for example 
myBinding:returnAddress.

A third option would be to implement the ReturnAddress feature as 
a SOAP Module explicitely handled by the application. The binding 
would not be involved at all.

Does this help?

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-soap12-email-20020626#correlation

Ugo Corda wrote:
>>This has to be contrasted with other features (e.g. signature) 
>>that may leave outside the binding, e.g. expressed as SOAP header 
>>block(s).
> 
> 
> What if I had a Request-Response MEP and a MOM-based binding. In that
case,
> I would probably need to put the return address information in some
header,
> so that the receiving service can know where to send the (asynchronous)
> answer back to. Would you consider that header to be part of the binding?
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2002 14:14:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:09 GMT