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

Re: Abstract Model contribution for module processing and also for attachments

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:00:49 +0100
Message-ID: <3AADFDE1.B14D210F@crf.canon.fr>
To: "Mark A. Jones" <jones@research.att.com>
CC: "Marc J. Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>, Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>, Marwan Sabbouh <ms@mitre.org>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>, Stuart Williams <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org

I do not think that, in general, it is possible to know
"Mark A. Jones" wrote:

>>        1. A module application may result in a fault or a
>>           successful evaluation.
>>        2. The result of a successful evaluation may be void
>>           or a response block.
>>           [MJH] Does this imply that processed blocks are
>>           removed from the message ? Should this be stated
>>           explicitly as in section 4.2.2 of the SOAP 1.1
>>           specification: "... a recipient receiving a header
>>           element MUST NOT forward that header element to the
>>           next application in the SOAP message path". As in
>>           SOAP, the response block may be very similar
>>           (identical) to the processed block, but for the
>>           purposes of discussion may be treated as a new
>>           block.

I think there are cases when processed blocks should not be removed
from messages. For example, consider a message that goes through
several intermediaries, and that contains some form of identification
(user/password, certificate, digital signature, whatever), carried as
a block, and used by at least two intermediaries. It would be wrong
for the first intermediary to remove the block from the message, as it
is also needed by the second intermediary.

Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2001 06:01:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:12 UTC