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

RE: An analysis of mustUnderstand and related issues

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:45:25 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D03441906@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>

Regarding the comment below from Noah's document, I would like to point
people at a proposal [1] for what I think might address at least part of
this.

"Consider a new and related question, raised originally by Glen Daniels:
"if you use mustUnderstand to introduce a new feature (dependsOn is an
example of such a feature),and if several header entries are target at
the same actor,  can you be sure the mustUnderstand entry  will be
noticed early enough to ensure that the new feature is safely acted
upon.  In other words, how do you avoid a situation where you have
already done unsafe processing by the time you notice that a
mustUnderstand header to your actor was not understood (note that SOAP
does not order processing of header entries to a given actor.)  I intend
to send a note to dist-App starting discussion on this, unless someone
else has already done so."

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001May/0284.html

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

>As most of you on dist-app know, a couple of weeks ago I 
>prepared a detailed clarification of parts of the SOAP V1.1 
>specification. It focussed on addressing of header entries, 
>message paths, message patterns, mustUnderstand, and so on.  
>Also included was a tentative proposal for additional 
>functions to ensure that appropriate faults are generated in 
>the case where a mustUnderstand header entry fails to reach 
>the intended actor. The original posting is at [1].
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 01:36:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT