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

Re: SOAP UML diagram

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:40:05 +0200
Message-ID: <3EE89ED5.5070704@crf.canon.fr>
To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
CC: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

Hugo, yes this is what the spec now says, the spec used to say AN 
ultimate receiver. This may be an unfortunate editorial change. 
Certainly, the intent had always been to allow multicast transports.


Hugo Haas wrote:

> Hi Martin.
> * Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com> [2003-06-06 12:22-0700]
>>updated diagram at:
> It looks good to me. A couple of comments below.
> - I don't see features linked to properties, or at least not directly.
> [1] says that "[a] feature may be expressed through multiple
> properties" and that "[p]roperties are named with URIs" and "property
> values SHOULD have an XML Schema [XML Schema Part 1] [XML Schema Part
> 2] type listed in the specification which introduces the property".
> I don't think that those are shown in the diagram.
> - My second comment is about ultimate receivers. I think that we need
>   to make the distinction between roles and nodes.
> A SOAP message has one sender, any number of intermediaries, and one
> ultimate receiver _identified_. They are naturally identified with
> URIs, and the ultimate receiver is:
>   http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope/role/ultimateReceiver
> [2] reads: "a SOAP node is said to act in one or more SOAP roles, each
> of which is identified by a URI known as the SOAP role name."
> Now, the message could be multicasted to 5 different SOAP node, which
> could each act in the role of the ultimate receiver.
> You are saying that the path can have several ultimate receivers (as a
> result of your discussion with Jean-Jacques, I think), however the
> definition of path is:
> | SOAP message path
> | 
> |  The set of SOAP nodes through which a single SOAP message passes.
> |  This includes the initial SOAP sender, zero or more SOAP
> |  intermediaries, and an ultimate SOAP receiver.
> Basically, I think that just changing "*" next to "ultimate" by "1"
> would do the trick, since I don't think that the diagram prevents the
> message from being sent to several nodes, although it may not be
> explicit.
> Also, "initial", "intermediary" and "ultimate" should probably be
> qualified as roles.
> - Interesting question here to try and tie this to our other diagram:
>   what is the relationship between a SOAP node and an agent?
> I think that a SOAP node is an agent implementing the SOAP 1.2
> specification.
> Regards,
> Hugo
>   1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-soap12-part2-20030507/#soapfeatspec
>   2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-soap12-part1-20030507/#soaproles
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 11:40:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:21 GMT