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

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

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:23:23 +0200
Message-ID: <3BCBE06B.593FC7C1@crf.canon.fr>
To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
CC: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org, Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
+1 to "sent further" (In fact, this is what I meant to write in the first place;
somehow the intention got lost along the message path from the initial sender
(brain) to the ultimate receiver (fingers).)

Jean-Jacques.

Christopher Ferris wrote:

> +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 Tuesday, 16 October 2001 03:23:36 GMT

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