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

RE: Issue 71: Additional actors

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:35:31 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192605@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'christopher ferris'" <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
> I think that the proposed 'none' actor is consistent with the
> SOAP process model and solves the problem.

+1

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> Sent: 06 September 2001 18:38
> To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> Cc: Mark Nottingham; Mark Jones; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 71: Additional actors
> 
> 
> Henrik,
> 
> Again, you are confusing the issue here. There may be cases
> where a block has no target actor, that is merely referenced by
> some other block or blocks that do. It is not the intent to have 
> a block behave in a manner inconsistent with other blocks. Rather,
> it is to enable the case where a block exists where its originator
> specifically wants that there not be an even accidentally targetted
> actor that might mistakenly process the block simply because the
> originator chose an actor name that happened to match an actor
> name that some SOAP node thinks means something else entirely.
> 
> I think that the proposed 'none' actor is consistent with the
> SOAP process model and solves the problem.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> > 
> > I am not saying whether we can or not or whether this is a 
> good idea or
> > not but rather trying to understand what the semantics are. 
> The reason
> > why I might be confused is the examples in [1] where MarkJ says that
> > 
> > "... you have a block that is referenced by some other
> > block.  A module that employs such headers would generally 
> be designed
> > to dispatch off of the 'thisDoesSomething' while simply 
> referencing the
> > 'whatever' block.  By targeting 'whatever' at an actor URI that is
> > guaranteed not to match, the module doesn't have to worry 
> that the final
> > destination may happen to dispatch (possibly for some other 
> purpose) on
> > a 'whatever' block."
> > 
> > To me this does seem like replacing the existing semantics 
> of a block in
> > order for it to behave in some other way than what it 
> normally does. Is
> > this not the case?
> > 
> > >It seems to me that this issue is not understanding, but
> > >acting. Mark is asking for a canonical actor URI that can be
> > >used to signify that "this block has no target actor" such
> > >that it can never be mistaken for a block which MUST be
> > >processed (such as in the case where the block is referenced
> > >by another block that may have a specific actor.
> > 
> > Henrik
> > 
> > [1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0004.html
Received on Friday, 7 September 2001 05:35:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT