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

Body blocks

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 17:04:16 +0200
Message-ID: <3EE0AD70.50608@crf.canon.fr>
To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
CC: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>

Close, but not quite. The things *inside* the SOAP:Body were called at 
some point *SOAP body blocks*. They were the things that were equivalent 
to SOAP header blocks. There was even a suggestion, which got close to 
being adopted, to have just blocks, ie. no Header nor Body.

However, for a reason which I now don't quite remember, every statement 
about body blocks were removed from the SOAP 1.2 spec, and the editors 
ended up having to describe things which were inside the Body with 
periphrases since they were no longer able to use the term body block.

Jean-Jacques.

Christopher B Ferris wrote:

> It is not a header block, even if it has *similar* semantics to a
> header block with mU='true' and
> role='http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope/role/ultimate 
> Receiver'.
> 
> The SOAP1.2 spec used to contain language that suggested that the 
> SOAP:Body had a relationship to a header block[1]. However, that
> language was removed in subsequent drafts, e.g. [2] as a result of
> the discussion that Mark cited.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011002/#N40069A
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011217/#soapbody
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christopher Ferris STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture 
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com phone: +1 508 234 3624
> 
> www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 06/04/2003 06:00:09 PM:
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
>>> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Martin Chapman 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:24 PM To: David Orchard;
>>> www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: SOAP UML diagram
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Some comments: - I believe that a body is a header that is
>>>> targetted at
>>> 
>>> the ultimate
>>> 
>>>> receiver
>>> 
>>> The 1.2 doc doesn't really say that, and makes a point at keeping
>>> the header and body concepts quite separate. Looking at the rules
>>> for the contents, both are identical except that headers may have
>>> role, mustunderstand and relay attributes. From a modelling
>>> perspective this actually makes a header a subclass of body!!!!
>>> Since thats not really how its presented in 1.2 I suggest we 
>>> avoid this trout!
>>> 
>> 
>> The body effectively has role=ultimate receiver and
>> mustUnderstand=true. How does "refining" something make it a parent
>> in modelling?  Headers
> 
> have
> 
>> these things being optional and a body effectively has them set.
> 
> Therefore,
> 
>> body is-a header.
>> 
>> Now MB makes the assertion that this was disproven on dist-app, but
>> 
> 
> darned
> 
>> if I can find the discussion.
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 6 June 2003 11:04:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:20 GMT