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

RE: Issue 140 bogus?

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:54:30 +0200 (CEST)
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0110031142421.25445-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 so it seems that to resolve your issue #140 you'd like to see
some informative discussion on the bases for determining the
Actor URI set of the node for this message, right?
 I may try to propose a first draft of such a discussion. Below
is what I would say taking into account my SOAP building

------- begin
 The set of Actor URIs that the node assumes for processing a
message can come from various sources:

 - the Specification: ".../next" is always in the set
 - static configuration for a combination of the endpoint URL,
SOAPAction URI (when applicable), even first Body child's qname
or an other part of the message.
 - dynamic configuration based on some (as yet unknown) extension
whose SOAP block would carry the necessary information.

 This set could include the empty Actor URI which would mean that
this node is the final receiver of the message.
------- end

This is a very first rough draft of what I think might satisfy
issue #140. Stuart, others, is this a good proposal? 8-)

As for where to put it, I think that as a non-normative
discussion it could fit very well into the primer. 8-)

It's on the agenda today, so we can propose some draft resolution
during the telcon. 8-)

                            Jacek Kopecky


On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Williams, Stuart wrote:

 > 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 05:54:32 UTC

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