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

+1 to a

Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:

> This is an interesting case, but I would claim that the 1.2 specification 
> does not include any notion at all of one node acting on behalf of 
> another.  If a node that you consider in real world terms to be a cache 
> chooses to assume the role of the endpoint, it can.  If you think it's 
> acting as an intermediary or on "behalf" of another node, I just don't see 
> that at all.  If it is understanding and processing messages to the 
> anonymous actor (including the body), then it must properly assume that 
> role, and it is the endpoint in SOAP 1.2 terms.
> 
> I think our choices are:  (a) leave the spec alone, which I think has the 
> implications above (b) make a significant change to the specification that 
> would introduce a notion of nodes acting on behalf of other nodes, and 
> explaining how in this circumstance a node can be both an intermediary and 
> a substitute for the endpoint (and therefore not relay the message.)
> 
> I lean moderately strongly toward (a). 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
> 10/15/01 01:55 PM
> 
>  
>         To:     "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
>         cc:     <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>         Subject:        RE: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd)
> 
> 
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 16 October 2001 07:24:23 UTC