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: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:42:06 -0400
Message-ID: <3BCC716E.2020700@sun.com>
To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
CC: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, henrikn@microsoft.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org

Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:

> Jean-Jacques Moreau writes:
>>>BTW, I do not think "forwarding" is a 
>>>direct consequence of "processing". The
>>>intermediary may decide not to process 
>>>the message, and still do forwarding.
> I don't think so.  The spec says you must assume the role of "next" if you 
> are a node, including an intermediary node.  If there is a mustUnderstand 
> to next you MUST process it.  Even doing those checks is "processing" in 
> the terminology of chapter 2.  So, I think every SOAP node MUST process 
> each message.  It is not necessarily required to assume any roles, other 
> than next, that would result in its actually processing any particular 
> headers, but it must at least follow the chapter 2 rules. 
> One can imagine software that would do other useful things with SOAP 
> messages, but such behavior is not covered by the SOAP spec, I think, just 
> as HTTP doesn't explicitly say that you can buffer messages on disk if you 
> like.  I don't think we should get into the business of nodes that don't 
> process messages.  IMO, every node, including intermediaries,  should 
> follow the rules in chapter 2, which is what it means to "process" a 
> message.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 17:43:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:16 UTC