RE: SOAP UML diagram

Roger,

It would probably help to read the SOAP1.2 PR draft to understand the 
model.

More responses below.

Cheers,

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

Roger Cutler wrote on 06/12/2003 03:09:41 PM:

> 
> Some questions, mostly but not all about cardinality:
> 
> A Message can have 0 senders and/or 0 receivers (although the underlying
> thing has 1 on bothe).  Is this right?  If a message is anonymous does
> it have zero senders or is the sender "anonymous"?

How can a message have zero senders? Certainly, a message could
get lost so never actually find its destination, but you need to 
have a sender, even if it remains anonymous, it still exists.

> 
> Can you have a Protocol Binding without an Underlying Protocol?

That wouldn't make any sense.

> 
> Can you have a sender without a message?  (Is that saying that the role
> does not have to be exercized?)

I guess, but that gets rather existential, doesn't it:)

> 
> I'm confused about what a Module is.  Why must it have at least one
> Header Block, but a Feature can exist without a Header Block?  Is a
> Module a necessary concept here?

Read the SOAP1.2 spec. A module is a realization of a SOAP feature
as a SOAP header block(s).

> 
> You've got 0..1 for Header inside Envelope.  I thought a header was
> mandatory.

Nope, the SOAP:Header element is not required. Only the SOAP:Body
is required.

> 
> Shouldn't MEP have connections to a bunch of other things?  Like Sender,
> Receiver and Node?  It seems to me that if a MEP is an abstract
> definition of how a bunch of messages are supposed to work together,
> that the various pieces of that pattern need to know that they are part
> of that MEP, don't they?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:24 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SOAP UML diagram
> 
> 
> 
> updated diagram at:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Jun/0019.html
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 21:21:35 UTC