- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 10:55:26 +0100
- 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 UTC