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

RE: Resolving the Ed Note in Part 1 section 5.1 (was New Issues)

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 18:33:09 -0500
To: dug@us.ibm.com
Cc: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <OF8885CCBE.B4D08055-ON85256B4F.0081EFDF@lotus.com>
Doug Davis writes:

>> Noah,
>> I haven't been following the discussions too closely,
>> so forgive me if this has already been covered...this
>> proposal seems to imply that the binding is a separate
>> component from the SOAP Node - which is fine - I can
>> see it going either way.  If it is really a different
>> component, not considered part of the SOAP Node, and
>> therefore should not modify the SOAP infoset (as your
>> note proposes), does that mean that even adding
>> something and then removing it on the other end before
>> it enters the next SOAP Node is also disallowed?  In
>> this case the infoset will be "unaltered" by the time
>> it is delivered to the next Node (since the next Node
>> doesn't start until after we leave the binding) so it
>> doesn't violate the proposed text.  If you want to
>> disallow this option then the text might need to be
>> firmed up a bit - or if you do want to allow this
>> option then it show be clear that this is an option.
>> Right now the text is a little vague as to whether or
>> not this is allowed. 
>> -Dug

You raise a good point.  In this proposal, the binding is indeed viewed as 
separate in the sense that the processing rules of chapter 2 apply >after< 
a binding has done the job of receiving an infoset, and at an intermediary 
>before< the relayed infoset is sent by the binding.  So, in that sense 
separate.

The proposal I made is intended as a compromise.   By imposing the 
separation, we get out of the business of figuring out how to integrate 
the two.  For example, we don't have to say how a binding can munge with 
the envelope when in fact the processing rules say that >all< mU checking 
must be done before any processing is done.  What we lose is the ability 
to apply the soap extensibility and processing model to bindings.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 18:48:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT