W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > August 2001

RE: Issue 71: Additional actors

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:34:28 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D04A224F2@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "XML Distributed Applications List" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

My feeling is that we don't need either of these:

"none" can be done using an optional block for the final destination.

"all" seems to be better handled by defining a module that explains how
it can repeat itself. This can be implemented within the current
processing model using "next". This is for example what SOAP-RP can do
and is already described in section 2.5

"Additional SOAP header blocks MAY be inserted at any point in the SOAP
message, and such inserted SOAP header blocks MAY be indistinguishable
from one or more just removed (effectively leaving them in place, but
emphasizing the need to reinterpret at each SOAP node along the SOAP
message path.)"

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

[1]
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/29/soap12-part1.html#procsoapmsgs

>[ I have an action item to resolve issue 71 regarding 
>definition of extra actors. Upon reflection, there are 
>arguments against both of the proposals below ('None', because 
>it really isn't essential, and 'All', because it enlarges the 
>semantics of actor). Despite this, I'd like to see if anyone 
>else thinks they might be useful before closing the issue. ]
Received on Friday, 31 August 2001 19:35:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT