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

RE: Issue 146 proposed resolution

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 18:18:00 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D03442567@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Cc: <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

>This seems problematic to me, because it doesn't seem to match 
>the rules 
>we've set for what it means to act in a role.  We say very clearly in 
>chapter 2 that, if you act in the anonymous role, you MUST 
>process bodies, 
>and we strongly imply that you are the endpoint (as opposed to an 
>intermediary.)

I think it does. The important thing is that it says "*if* you act...".
In this case, the party who the sender thinks is the ultimate
destination decides to offload the processing to another node. In other
words, the *intended* ultimate destination decides not to act in the
role of the ultimate destination. This may not only be a sensible thing
to do in cases like dealing with front-ends but there are many other
scenarios where this can happen as well.
 
Another formulation is like this: "One knows who the ultimate
destination is once the message gets there but not necessarily before."
Given that a SOAP node can decide its role on a per message basis, I
don't think this is inconsistent with the current processing model. The
proposed text was just an attempt of clarifying the current model.

Henrik
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 21:18:57 GMT

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