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

Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd)

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:23:35 -0400
Message-ID: <3BCAFF77.2010308@sun.com>
To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1 to consistency.

I have no preference for forwarded vs relayed.

In fact, the cited text says "sent further
along the message path" which I prefer to either forwarded
or relayed.

How 'bout:

"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 sent further along the SOAP message path to the next SOAP node."

I could just as easily be convinced that 'relayed' is appropriate.
It does have a well understood architype. Let's pick one and use
it consistently throughout.

Cheers,

Chris


Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:

> 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 11:26:57 GMT

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