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: <jones@research.att.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:30:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200302181530.KAA14685@bual.research.att.com>
To: RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com, jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

+1 to Jean-Jacques's reply.  The SOAP headers are a general
extensibility and modularity mechanism just as suitable for modularly
constructed applications as for use by the "messaging" layer.  Indeed,
until general standards for security, reliability, asynchronous
messaging, conversations, etc. are in place, these are all being
currently handled at the application level, often using SOAP headers.
My feeling is that this is analogous to programming language
libraries.  Common, useful functionality is eventually standardized
into widely supported standard libraries so that each application does
not have to re-invent such things, so that code will be more portable,
etc.  Application-specific libraries are also often a useful thing,
too.

--mark

Mark A. Jones
AT&T Labs -- Strategic Standards Division
Shannon Laboratory
Room 2A02
180 Park Ave.
Florham Park, NJ  07932-0971

email: jones@research.att.com
phone: (973) 360-8326
  fax: (973) 236-6453



	From www-ws-arch-request@w3.org Mon Feb 17 03:17 EST 2003
	Delivered-To: jones@research.att.com
	X-Authentication-Warning: mail-red.research.att.com: postfixfilter set sender to www-ws-arch-request@w3.org using -f
	Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 03:16:55 -0500 (EST)
	Resent-Message-Id: <200302170816.h1H8Gtq09775@frink.w3.org>
	X-Authentication-Warning: lancelot.crf.canon.fr: smap set sender to <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr> using -f
	Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:15:57 +0100
	From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
	User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130
	X-Accept-Language: en,fr
	MIME-Version: 1.0
	To: "Cutler Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
	Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
	Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
	Subject: Applications are allowed to process SOAP header blocks (was: Messaging  Service Layer)
	X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/3E509A3D.9060108@crf.canon.fr
	Resent-From: www-ws-arch@w3.org
	X-Mailing-List: <www-ws-arch@w3.org> archive/latest/4354
	X-Loop: www-ws-arch@w3.org
	Resent-Sender: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
	List-Id: <www-ws-arch.w3.org>
	List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
	List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
	X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0
		tests=IN_REP_TO,NOSPAM_INC,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,
		      SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA,
		      X_ACCEPT_LANG,X_AUTH_WARNING,X_LOOP,X_MAILING_LIST
		version=2.43-cvs
	X-Spam-Level: 


	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 Tuesday, 18 February 2003 10:32:26 GMT

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