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

RE: Comments on issue 101

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:44:23 -0500
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF78F7338F.C3CA3710-ON85256AF6.006C42A4@raleigh.ibm.com >
The problem with that approach is that each header is
treated as an individual chunk of XML.  Ignoring hrefs
and actor=none for a moment - each header is in essence
a separate unit of work - body blocks are not the same.
The spec specifically says we're not going to deal with
things like boxcarring so what does multiple independent
body blocks mean then, if not taken a single unit ?

"Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com> on 10/31/2001 01:41:15 PM

To:   "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
cc:   Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>,
Subject:  RE: Comments on issue 101

Thinking more about this I think I was too quick on the trigger. While
SOAP implementations in many cases dispatch the complete contents of the
Body element to some "application", the processing model is in fact
consistent in that all body blocks have to be understood in order for
the SOAP processor to process the message successfully.

I don't think it makes sense to say that body faults can cause
mustUnderstand faults simply because this is not how the mustUnderstand
fault is defined [1]:

"An immediate child element information item of the SOAP Header element
information item that was either not understood or not obeyed by the
processing party contained a SOAP mustUnderstand attribute information
item with a value of "true" (see 4.2.3 SOAP mustUnderstand Attribute)"

In other words, I don't think there is any inconsistency in saying that
we have a set of body blocks and that they are equivalent to header
blocks with default actor and mustUnderstand set to true. That the
mustUnderstand may be interpreted by different parties in any given
implementation is outside the scope of this specification.

A question is whether we would want to have a Client.Body fault or some
such to indicate in a generic manner that the body was not understood.

Hope this is more clear


>Am I right in this understanding? I think this example should
>be written in the spec or in the primer because it makes clear
>that there is no issue about "understanding" (as in mU) of the
>RPC calls because the receiver has to "understand" env:Body
>and not m:GetLastTradePrice and thus an unknown method is not
>an mU fault as has been suggested a few times. 8-)

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011002/#soapfault
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2001 14:45:09 UTC

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