W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Issue #170: "Referencing Data missing from the message"

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 17:20:23 -0500
To: skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF2697194C.2340DF84-ON85256B35.007B9648@lotus.com>
Stuart Williams suggests:

>> The difference may not be so strong, given that Jacek [16] is open to
>> the deserialisation process being lazy, avoiding the need to
>> resolve/dereference references that are not actually required by the
>> computation at the local SOAP node.
>> 
>> There may be a difference between Noah and Jacek on whether a SOAP
>> Fault *MUST* be generated in the event that href
>> resolution/dereferencing during deserialisation (lazy or otherwise) is
>> actually made and fails.


How can an external observer distinguish these two cases?  Either can
occur due to conditions known only within the processing node.  In one
case, I don't dereference because I was lazy and didn't try.  In the
other case, I try, but there's a glitch in my network layer and I
can't make the connection.  You worry that Jacek would REQUIRE that I
fault only in the latter case, but how could you tell?  I might always
claim:  "gee, actually, I never even tried to get at it."

I think I'm still happiest with MAY fault.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2002 17:32:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:05 GMT