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: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:40:07 -0500
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, xml-dist-app <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <OFF1487195.75840014-ON85256B50.004A735C@raleigh.ibm.com >
If the bindings are not held to same processing rules/restrictions (and are
separate from the SOAP node) then it seems perfectly valid for them to
modify the envelope (e.g. add headers...) just as long as they are removed
before the envelope is handed over to the next node.  That adheres to the
"main rule" Noah has put forward - infoset remains unchanged - and it seems
less complicated than nesting envelopes - this leaves it open for bindings
to use the envelope (or not) - just as long as they adhere to the "main
rule".
-Dug


"Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>@w3.org on 01/29/2002 08:19:51
AM

Sent by:    xml-dist-app-request@w3.org


To:    Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM@Lotus
cc:    Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'"
       <henrikn@microsoft.com>, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, xml-dist-app
       <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>
Subject:    Re: Resolving the Ed Note in Part 1 section 5.1 (was New
       Issues)



Presumably, one could use nested SOAP envelopes to get around the problem
of
not being able to apply the SOAP extensibility framework. In this model,
the
initial envelope would be wrapped into a second envelope that would be
delivered to the next hop. The second envelope would contain binding
specific
information, represented as headers (bodies?). :)

Jean-Jacques.

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> 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 Tuesday, 29 January 2002 08:40:16 GMT

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