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
them):

  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".
Comments?

Jean-Jacques.

[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 GMT

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