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

Re: [getf] Node MUST process? (was: [GETF] okay, here's an updateddraftwith Henrik's option B)

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 15:14:51 +0200
Message-ID: <3CFE0ECB.8AFC6A3D@crf.canon.fr>
To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
CC: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org

Hmm... I think you are actually saying something quite different; at least this is
not how I've understood Noah's original proposal [1]. Maybe it's the "need do so
for others" which is confusing.

IMO, the points he was trying to convey were (or at least my interpretation of

  1. The SOAP processing model applies to a single message only, in isolation from
     any other SOAP message.
  2. There is no state, correlation or coordination at the processing model level,
     even, for example if you are using a MEP which involves sending mutiple
     messages in sequence, each subsequent message depending on the response to
     the previous message.
  3. Coordination/orchestration between multiple message is done at the MEP level
     (in hypothetical new MEPs), not at the processing model level.

I don't think this spec necessarily needs to say that a SOAP node "is not
restricted from engaging in activities that do not involve SOAP messages".


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Jun/0011.html

Christopher Ferris wrote:

> Hmmm... seems to me that what we're trying to say is that
> the entity which we call a "SOAP node" is not restricted
> from engaging itself in activities that are related to
> messaging, but that do not involve SOAP messages per se.
> So, it isn't clear to me that we have yet captured the correct
> words to say this in spec-ese. (at least, I for one
> don't read that in the proposals to date). How 'bout:
> <chris>
> The processing rules defined in this section relate exclusively
> to the circumstance in which a SOAP node *receives*, by (any|some unspecified)
> means, a SOAP message. [note: I think that more correctly, we should probably
> use the phrase: a message that conveys a SOAP envelope infoset" to be
> precise] This processing is further qualified when a SOAP node
> considers itself a SOAP intermediary node, acting in both the receiving
> and forwarding roles, in that order.
> Beyond that qualification, these SOAP processing rules have nothing
> to say about the processing undertaken in the context of more
> than one message (whether or not those messages convey a SOAP
> envelope infoset) by an entity that considers itself
> to be a SOAP node. The processing associated with related messages
> is expected to be defined by a special class of feature that we call
> an MEP (see section XX).
> </chris>
> Cheers,
> Chris
> Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> > I would like to suggest the following further tweaks (changes
> > between >>brackets<<).
> >
> > <noah tweak="2">
> > This section defines the SOAP distributed processing model. The
> > processing model defined in this section applies to a single SOAP
> > message >>independently<< of any other SOAP message; it makes no
> > claim as to whether a given entity acting as a SOAP node for the
> > processing of one (or more) messages need do so for others.
> >
> > While the specification of individual SOAP features (see 3.1 SOAP
> > Features)>>,<< such as MEPs>>,<< may call for groups of messages
> > to be processed in >>combination<<, this is >>independent of
> > (orthogonal to?)<< the processing model defined in this section.
> > </noah>
> >
> > Jean-Jacques.
> >
> >
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2002 09:15:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:20 UTC