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

Re: Issue 146 proposed resolution

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:39:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200111151639.LAA26507@markbaker.ca>
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 GMT

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