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

Re: Issues to think about in the MOM

From: Frank McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:41:55 -0800
Message-Id: <A18F5490-1B24-11D8-9121-000A95DC494A@mac.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>

  SOAP talks about binding; but, in SOAP-land, that is really the 
relationship between a message and how it should be processed. In 
addition, binding is essentially outside the message itself:

The creation, transmission, and processing of a SOAP message, possibly 
through one or more intermediaries, is specified in terms of a 
distributed state machine. The state consists of information known to a 
SOAP node at a given point in time, including but not limited to the 
contents of messages being assembled for transmission or received for 
processing. The state at each node can be updated either by local 
processing, or by information received from an adjacent node.

I.e., SOAP binding is viewed as an aspect of the state of nodes that 
are processing messages; and don't have much to do with the message 

I don't particularly quarrel with this view; but I think it is 
disingenuous. In particular, contrary to the SOA view of things, it 
focuses on the internals of SOAP processors rather than the messages 
being exchanged. We need to some more clarity here.


On Nov 19, 2003, at 10:36 PM, Ugo Corda wrote:

> Frank,
>> SOAP 1.2 seems essentially silent on the transport aspects of 
>> messages.
> I don't fully understand what you are referring to. Could you please 
> clarify?
> Thank you,
> Ugo
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
>> Behalf Of Frank McCabe
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:18 PM
>> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>> Subject: Issues to think about in the MOM
>> Some issues to consider in the MOM
>> 1. Does correlation still belong?
>> 2. Should we have message intermediaries?
>>    Pro: Allows us to explain router-style intermediaries
>>    Con: If a message has been modified in *any* way, is it still the
>> same message
>> 3. The SOAP notion of an envelope is essentially the outer wrapper of
>> the message infoset. However, SOAP 1.2 seems essentially
>> silent on the
>> transport aspects of messages. I don't think we should be so silent;
>> especially since we cannot explain routers without it. However, the
>> natural place for this is in the envelope (after all, envelopes have
>> addresses written on them!)
>> 3a. In effect, is an address that is used by a transport
>> mechanism part
>> of the message or not? What about message oriented audit
>> trails? (Where
>> the message carries with it a record of its trajectory through the
>> system.)
>> 3b. The current definition of envelope is not really consistent with
>> the SOAP view. However, it *does* capture the concept of a message's
>> address.
>> 4. The diagram that is in the text does not reflect the
>> discussion that
>> we had in Palo Alto. That includes delivery policies as well as
>> intermediaries.
>> Probably there is more, but this is a pretty good list already!
>> Frank
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2003 01:41:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:09 UTC