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

Re: Processing which is not triggered by blocks?

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:25:22 +0200 (CEST)
To: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107231901340.19742-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 my short answer is yes and maybe. My long answer follows.
 Yes, I think that the SOAP processor can do whatever it will
upon receiving a message as long as it seems to the sender of the
message that it did "the right thing". As Mark Nottingham already
pointed out, it's the same as having an intermediary insert a
header that wasn't called for by an already existing header.
 Maybe it should be pointed out in the processing model but I
think that this is actually quite clear and those who don't
uderstand this might easily get confused by such a remark.

                            Jacek Kopecky


On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Glen Daniels wrote:

 > In a conversation today (well, yesterday :)) the following issue came up,
 > which I would appreciate the group's input on.
 > Is it possible for a node (say an intermediary) to perform processing on a
 > SOAP message purely as a result of receiving the message, and not because
 > any particular blocks in the message are targeted at that node?
 > For instance, I can imagine a digital signature intermediary whose job is
 > simply to sign any message it receives and forward it, with an extra trailer
 > block containing the signature, to a fixed endpoint for which it acts as a
 > proxy.  Although our model for this sort of thing has traditionally
 > contained a header block targeted at the intermediary to trigger this
 > processing, it seems to me that there may be nothing which actually requires
 > such a block.
 > This would also make the case for the "fault on mustUnderstand blocks which
 > are targeted elsewhere" easier to explain, since the endpoint could simply
 > perform this (or any other custom) processing as a part of its standard way
 > of dealing with messages.
 > So, what do you think?  Is it OK for a processor/node to do work without
 > explicitly being told to do so by a block?  And if we think it is, should we
 > call that out in the processing model?
 > --Glen
Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 13:25:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:14 UTC