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 12:09:21 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192674@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: 03 October 2001 10:55
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: David Fallside; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue 140 bogus?
> 
> 
>  Stuart,
>  so it seems that to resolve your issue #140 you'd like to see
> some informative discussion on the bases for determining the
                                     ^^^^^basis
> Actor URI set of the node for this message, right?

Just about right! I'm less interested in enumerating the set of Actor URIs
than I am in discussion of the possible basis upon which a SOAP Node decides
that it performs the role of a particular actor with respect to a given
message. Enumerating the set and testing for set membership certainly would
do.

>  I may try to propose a first draft of such a discussion. Below
> is what I would say taking into account my SOAP building
> experience:
> 
> ------- 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-)

I've a slightly different suggestion, but I think the spirit is the same.
Something like the following at the end of Section 4.2.2 in Part 2 would
work for me. This may need a little work by the editors, the first two items
tersely restate what is in the 3rd to last and 2nd to last para of the
current 4.2.2. The last item is the informative item which I think would
cover what I think is missing. Stylistically the MAY may not be the right
way to 'tack' this on to the list...

---being
In determing whether a SOAP Node performs the role of a particular actor
with respect to SOAP message that is being processed, a SOAP Node:

	- MUST always performs the role of the ".../next" actor. 
	- MUST never perform the role of the "../none" actor.
	- MAY make a determination based upon such factors as:
		local configuration information;
		the receiving transport endpoint address;
		the message content (covers dynamic content and 1st body
child);
		any other implemenation dependent factors;
---end

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

The primer might want to expand on it by example. Personally I continue to
think that the spec should offer something. Part 4.2.2 seems like thre right
place to me, but I'll go with the flow.

> 
> It's on the agenda today, so we can propose some draft resolution
> during the telcon. 8-)
> 
>                             Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                             Idoox
>                             http://www.idoox.com/

Regards

Stuart
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 07:10:25 GMT

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