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

RE: Issue 146 (default and anon actors, endpoints and ultimate re cipients - for danbri :-))

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:38:01 -0500
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFFC1C51EC.1583223E-ON85256AFC.00506B4B@raleigh.ibm.com >
Sure, as long as I can continue on my rant. :-)
-Dug


"Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com> on 11/06/2001 09:35:18 AM

To:   Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject:  RE: Issue 146 (default and anon actors, endpoints and ultimate re
      cipients - for danbri :-))



Hi Dug,

Whilst its tempting to dig into discussing the issue, I'd like to know
whether you'd like any changes in the way I've stated the issue:

"The terms 'default actor', 'anonymous actor', 'ultimate recipient' and
'SOAP Endpoint' are being used loosely as synonyms. It is not clear whether
a SOAP Node acting as default actor, anon actor, ultimate recipient, or
endpoint with respect to a given SOAP message may behave as SOAP
intermediary and relay the SOAP message to further SOAP Nodes. Stated
differently: Does a SOAP Message Path always terminate at the default
actor,
anonymous actor, ultimate recipient or SOAP endpoint?"

I'm hoping that you think its 'good enough' to enable discussion (and
ultimately resolution).

Thanks,

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 06 November 2001 13:03
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue 146
>
>
> Stuart,
>  Yep, sorry, I misunderstood your note.  Related to the issue at hand,
> I'm wondering how people view the following example:
>   <env>
>     <headers>
>       <h1 MU="1"/>
>       <h2 MU="1"/>
>     </headers>
>     <body.../>
>   </env>
>
> h1 and h2 don't have actor attributes.
> As you said in your note, people are using the terms default actor,
> anonymous actor and ultimate recipient interchangeably, so can h1
> and h2 be processed by anyone other than the ultimate recipient?
> I always thought so.  I interpreted it this way:
>  - any node along the message path may process untargeted headers
>    as long as they fully understand the semantics of the header
>  - the ultimate recipient, however, MUST assume the role of
>    default/anonymous actor.  Meaning that it MUST process h1 and h2
>    if they are still in the message.
> The main reason I see behind allowing other nodes to assume the role
> of the anon actor is that a client knows nothing about the message
> path - all it really knows is the one/next node it is supposed to
> send it's message to.  So, there will be times when it does not know
> what Nodes the message will pass through and as such can't control
> which Node along the message path will process which part - so by
> leaving the "actor" off (IMO) it is saying "I don't care which exact
> Node processes this header, just as long as it does get processed
> (hence the MU="1")."
> So, while I agree that the ultimate recipient is also the default/anon
> actor - I do not agree that a Node that acts as a default/anon
> actor is also the ultimate recipient.
> Am I alone in this interpretation?
> -Dug
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 09:38:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT