- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:39:36 -0500 (EST)
- To: henrikn@microsoft.com (Henrik Frystyk Nielsen)
- Cc: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1 It's important that SOAP support a gateway model, and in doing so, not attempt to prevent "processing the message" from including delegation to other processors. > >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 > -- Mark Baker, CSO, Planetfred. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 12:01:07 UTC