W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2003

Re: Applications are allowed to process SOAP header blocks (was: Messaging Service Layer)

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:10:57 -0500
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF2C7554A1.217540B4-ON85256CD0.0046FD60-85256CD0.004869CC@us.ibm.com>
+1; in fact, there are no "layers" per se from the SOAP perspective. Just 
a SOAP node
and its responsibilities w/r/t the SOAP processing model. I would strongly 
caution against
any such characterization of "layering" in the WSA.

Any  consideration of "layering" can be at best an approximation as there 
is no right
or wrong way to implement a SOAP node. There is no bright line that can, 
or even should,
be drawn to demark the boundary between application and infrastructure 
(message layer)
processing of a message. To even attempt to define such a boundary would 
be a mistake.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 02/17/2003 03:15:57 AM:

> 
> I have to disagree. There is nothing in the SOAP specification 
> that indicates that header blocks are to be processed only by the 
> messaging layer and not by the application. The SOAP 
> specification is mute on that aspect and is only concerned with 
> what happens at a given (SOAP) node, independently of what layer 
> performs the processing. Quoting section 2.6, Processing SOAP 
> Messages:
> 
> <quote>
> Process all mandatory SOAP header blocks targeted at the node 
> and, in the case of an ultimate SOAP receiver, the SOAP body. A 
> SOAP node MAY also choose to process non-mandatory SOAP header 
> blocks targeted at it.
> </quote>
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part1.html#procsoapmsgs
> 
> Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:
> > The messaging layer is in charge of what
> > is in the SOAP headers, whereas the application layer is responsible 
for 
> > the body.  More specifically, the messaging layer might mess around 
with 
> > the body by doing things like encrypting it, but after decryption the 
> > messaging layer would hand the body to the application layer of the 
> > receiver exactly as the body was given to it by the sender.  The 
> > messaging layer has no business changing the data in the body -- as 
far 
> > as it is concerned the body is just bits or characters.  And I think 
> > that it also has no business trying to analyze the contents of the 
data 
> > in the body.
> > 
> > If you agree with the preceding statements I think it may have 
> > consequences down the line that are non-trivial.  The last statement 
may 
> > be a bit strong, but that's the way it seems to me other layers work.
> 
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 08:11:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:14 GMT