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

RE: Issue 140 bogus?

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 07:05:37 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D05168C97@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Cc: <jacek@idoox.com>, <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Let me clarify that I think SOAP 1.1 is exactly right in what it states:
For a given message, the anonymous actor is the ultimate destination. I
also think that SOAP 1.2 is very clear on what it means to be the
anonymous actor: you deal with all parts of the message targeted at you.

What it *doesn't* say is *how* that ultimate destination is to handle
the role of being the ultimate destination because that depends on the
semantics of the message. SOAP has nothing to say about specific message
semantics.

Your scenario has several hidden assumptions that make it impossible to
say whether it is right or wrong. If you imply something like this:

         A -> B -> ANON -> C -> ANON -> D
         <-- msg 1 -><-- msg 2 --><-- msg 3 ...

then that would be perfectly valid. Other combinations may not make be
valid, however the current text quite clearly identifies the role of the
anonymous actor. I would strongly advise against adding text that overly
constrains the possibilities based on such hidden assumptions.

>I think that pretty formally boils down to "the message path 
>ends at the 
>node assuming the anonymous role.  There can be no node 
>further along the 
>message path, and there can therefore be no more than one node 
>assuming 
>the anonymous role."  I don't think that's unduly telling the 
>node how to do its job.

Henrik
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2001 10:06:10 GMT

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