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: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 18:46:08 +0200
Message-ID: <3EEF45D0.6030103@crf.canon.fr>
To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
CC: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

Hugo, yes, the ultimateReceiver role is unique, but there may be several 
nodes playing that role. With a MEP like request-response, the first 
node that plays "ultimateReceiver" does become the ultimate receiver, 
and processes the body. With a hypothetical multicast MEP, several nodes 
could receive a copy of the same message, via the underlying multicast 
transport, and if they all play the ultimateReceiver role, they would 
all become ultimate receivers.

BTW, http://.../ultimateReceiver is the role name, and a role that plays 
that role is a SOAP ultimate receiver.

I hope this helps,

Jean-Jacques.

Hugo Haas wrote:

> Hi Jean-Jacques.
> 
> * Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr> [2003-06-12
> 17:40+0200]
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> Hmmm... so you are saying that a SOAP message should be able to have 
> more than one ultimate receiver.
> 
> My view is that conceptually, there is only one ultimate receiver
> role but several SOAP nodes may end up with the message in their
> hands and act in this abstract role.
> 
> Basically, I don't see any problem with what the spec says as long as
>  this abstract/role vs. concrete/node separation is clearly made.
> 
> Or maybe I didn't get your point.
> 
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 12:47:00 GMT

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