- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:55:56 -0700
- To: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Cc: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Close :) Processing by an intermediary may NOT result in a message being forwarded. In a two-way message exchange pattern, a cache may determine that it can deal with the message and short-circuit the message path like for example an HTTP cache does. In this case, the cache acts on behalf of the ultimate destination without actually being the ultimate destination. There are also cases where a message path fails and an intermediary returns a fault. In this case, it *does* act as an initial sender of the fault message although it doesn't act as the ultimate destination of the incoming message (this is what the faultactor is for). Maybe the text in section 2.5 [1] covers this already: "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." Sorry if I have missed this but is this intended for the terminology section? Does it need to be repeated, or? Thanks! Henrik [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#procsoapmsgs >I don't think that we have dropped it. True, it is implicitly >rather than explicitly stated. Maybe the following would >address your concerns? > >"A SOAP intermediary is both a SOAP receiver and a SOAP sender >that is neither the intial SOAP sender nor the ultimate >receiver of a SOAP message. A SOAP intermediary is target-able >from with a SOAP message by means of the SOAP actor attribute >value. A SOAP intermediary MUST process 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."
Received on Monday, 15 October 2001 13:58:59 UTC