- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:05:58 -0400
- To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Chris Ferris suggests: "A SOAP intermediary is a SOAP receiver, target-able from with a SOAP message, that is neither the intial SOAP sender nor the ultimate receiver of that message. It processes a SOAP message according to the SOAP processing model. A consequence of processing is that the SOAP message is forwarded further along the SOAP message path to the next SOAP node." Mostly, I like it, but I have a quibble with the word "forwarded". The text in the SOAP 1.2 WD uses the term "relayed" [1]: "If the SOAP node is a SOAP intermediary, the SOAP message pattern and results of processing (e.g. no fault generated) MAY require that the SOAP message be sent further along the SOAP message path. Such relayed SOAP messages MUST contain all SOAP header blocks and the SOAP body blocks from the original SOAP message, in the original order, except that SOAP header blocks targeted at the SOAP intermediary MUST be removed (such SOAP blocks are removed regardless of whether they were processed or ignored). Additional SOAP header blocks MAY be inserted at any point in the SOAP message, and such inserted SOAP header blocks MAY be indistinguishable from one or more just removed (effectively leaving them in place, but emphasizing the need to reinterpret at each SOAP node along the SOAP message path.)" I have a very slight preference for relayed, but I think we should use either "forwarded" or "relayed" consistently throughout the specification. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-20010709/#_Toc478383605 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 15 October 2001 11:16:22 UTC