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

Re: Issue 140 bogus?

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 20:01:20 +0200 (CEST)
To: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>
cc: Stuart Williams <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0110021953180.24074-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 When composing my reply I was enlightened and I think I see your
point now.
 You want to route the message according to the Actor URIs,
right? Since there is no ordering to the Actor URIs present in a
message, I don't see how this could work. I think trying to tweak
SOAP in order for this to work is misguided.
 Yes, one can design a routing extension, even one that uses the
order of headers and the actor URIs, and such extension would
have to take into account issue #140.
 If routing (in any form) is not what you meant, disregard the
above and be patient with me, please. 8-)

                            Jacek Kopecky


On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, christopher ferris wrote:

 > Jacek,
 > I think that the point that Stuart raises actually has merit.
 > There is nothing explicit in the SOAP envelope that identifies
 > the ultimate intended recipient of a SOAP message.
 > What I think Henrik would say though is that there are any number
 > of ways by which you can identify within the SOAP envelope
 > as well as or in addition to external to the SOAP envelope
 > who/what is the intended recipient.
 > While I would agree that there certainly are any number of ways
 > to achieve this, it seems to me that it is not unreasonable
 > that the SOAP envelope carry this information in a standard
 > manner so that we don't end up with a gazillion different
 > and more than likely non-interoperable ways of achieving
 > this.
 > The same applies to SOAPAction IMO.
 > Cheers,
 > Chris
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 14:01:22 UTC

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