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. :-)

"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
anonymous actor, ultimate recipient or SOAP endpoint?"

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



> -----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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:16 UTC