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

Re: Issue 71: Additional actors

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 10:55:26 +0100
Message-ID: <3B98998E.3020707@sun.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: "'christopher ferris'" <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, 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

Marc.

>>-----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
> 
> 



-- 
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Friday, 7 September 2001 05:56:44 GMT

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