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: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 15:13:04 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192735@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Doug Davis'" <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Doug,

Thanks... rant away...


Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 06 November 2001 14:38
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue 146 (default and anon actors, endpoints 
> and ultimate
> re cipients - for danbri :-))
> 
> 
> 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 10:16:27 GMT

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