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

RE: Issue 140 bogus?

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:39:58 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192671@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek@idoox.com>
Cc: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Jacek,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@idoox.com]
> Sent: 02 October 2001 20:00
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: David Fallside; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue 140 bogus?
> 
> 
>  Stuart,
>  I take back calling your issue bogus and non-issue. You and
> Chris have shown me that there are issues behind #140 that need
> to be addressed.
>  I didn't mean to insult you, Stuart, I only read the text of
> #140 and that was what I understood.

No offense taken, nor did I find your posting insulting. 

>  Now on to how we can solve the issues. 8-)
> 
>  I'd like to split issue #140 to
> Issue 140a: boolean amIThatActor(URI actorURI, Context context) :
> 	what should be in the context?
> Issue 140b: routing the message (related at least to issue #103)

At least for me 140b was not actually part of the matter I was trying to
raise. It was cast in the Issues list as about determination by a SOAP Node
of whether or not it takes on the default actor role with respect to a
particular message ie. boolean IAmThatActor("http://../default", ...). So I
think that the Issue I had raised is what I think you have labelled as 140a.

>  As for issue 140a: my experience in implementing SOAP leads me
> to saying that this should be implementation-dependent. We could
> just say:
>  "A node assumes the roles of a set of actors, identified by
> their respective Actor URIs, constant for this message."
>  (This wouldn't prevent an implementation or an extension from
> setting this set dynamically even during the message processing,
> it would only require that when the message leaves the node, the
> set can be known and the message looks as though processed by
> that set of actors. My double-quoted sentence might need some
> tweaking to reflect this note.)

Regarding your double quotes... I think there is wording in the spec to that
effect already, from [1]:

"The roles assumed MUST be invariant during the processing of an individual
SOAP message; because this specification deals only with the processing of
individual SOAP messages, no statement is made regarding the possibility
that a given piece of software might or might not act in varying roles when
processing more than one SOAP message."

>  So my take on the function's interface is:
>  boolean amIThatActor(URI actorURI, Everything theWorld)

I guess I find myself sighing agreement here. "Everthing theWorld" seems a
bit large. I think that the spec. could afford some 'informative' (ie.
non-normative) that discussed the more obvious basis which an SOAP Node
might determine that it assumes a given actor role.
 
>  As for issue 140b, I think we decided that a source-routing
> extension is out of scope of the XMLP WG. I think the spec should
> say that the "where-to-send-the-message" must be known *somehow*.
> The "somehow" part depends on message patterns, contracts, WSDL
> (et al) and routing extensions. 8-)
> 
>  Hoping to have split the issue appropriately,
> 
>                             Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                             Idoox
>                             http://www.idoox.com/

Regards

Stuart
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 05:40:25 GMT

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