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 16:58:51 -0500
To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
Cc: henrikn@microsoft.com, hugo@w3.org, jacek@systinet.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFF254504C.E6C22374-ON85256AF6.00774380@raleigh.ibm.com >
I think it would be interesting to see how many SOAP
processors would be able to successfully process
a message where instead of:
  <env>
    <header>
      <myheader1 mu=1/>
    <header>
    <body>
      <getQuote.../>
    </body>
  </env>
we sent:
  <env>
    <body>
      <myheader/>
      <getQuote.../>
    </body>
  </env>
Just a guess but I think most would not - and I think
it is mainly because they had a similar interpretation
of the spec.
When we say headers should be (or are) just like the
body, why do we say that headers should be used as
extensions - why not use the body?  Sure we can, as
long as you wanted an implicit MU attribute - but we
don't tell people to do that - should we?  Maybe if
we did that then I would be less inclined to look at
the Body as a single unit.  And going one step further
why not just get rid of the MU attribute at all - then
we have Martin's proposal, where we have an optional
section and a mandatory section - or if we want to
have an ordered mixing of MU and non-MU blocks then just
get rid of the HEADER and BODY elements and just have
blocks.
I think it is important to understand why the above
example would fail (my assumption) and what we could
do to fix it so that either we don't break them or we
make it perfectly clear to implementors why they're
all wrong.
-Dug


Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com on 10/31/2001 03:29:20 PM

To:   Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   henrikn@microsoft.com, hugo@w3.org, jacek@systinet.com,
      xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject:  RE: Comments on issue 101




Dug Davis writes:

>> 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 ?

I think it means the same thing as multiple header blocks, all with
mustUnderstand="1", all addressed to the anonymous actor.   That is:
follow the rules in chapter 2.  Just because you understand and process
multiple entries, whether in Header or Body, does not mean your are
boxcarring (it might, we can't prohibit it, but we aren't working through
the many issues you would need to handle to make boxcarring work.)  In
general, we say:

Note also that nothing in the spec says anything about the order of
processing of such anonymous header blocks vs. body blocks.  They're
symmetric.  In general, order is indeterminate unless the message uses
special features: [1]

"It is possible that the processing of particular SOAP block would control
or determine the order of processing for other SOAP blocks. For example,
one could create a SOAP header block to force processing of other SOAP
header blocks in lexical order. In the absence of such a SOAP block, the
order of processing is at the discretion of the SOAP node."

I really think we don't want to invent special rules for all of this
involving the body.  It's syntactic sugar for a common case, and it is
suggestive of being the main point of the message.

Also:  I disagree with those who say that the body can't be manipulated by
intermediaries.  If that were true, how could we do encryption at
intermediaries?

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011002/#procsoapmsgs

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2001 17:00:09 GMT

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