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

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

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 06:59:29 -0400
Message-ID: <3CFF4091.7070902@sun.com>
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
CC: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org

Jean-Jacques,

The SOAP processing model specifies[1] how a SOAP receiving node processes[2] a
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^
SOAP message. It applies to a single message only, in isolation from
any other SOAP message. The SOAP processing model itself does not[3]
maintain any state or perform any correlation or coordination between
messages[4], even, for example, when used in combination with a feature
which involves sending multiple SOAP messages in sequence, each subsequent
message depending on the response to the previous message. It is the
responsibility of each such features to define such combined[5]
processing.

How 'bout the one minor tweak. Again, this constitutes my main concern
in that SOAP process rules have nothing to say about what a SOAP sending
node does with the message.

 > [2] I like "processing" better than "receiving" here. I think it's up to
 > the MEP to specify what happens when a message is received. IMO, the
 > processing model is concerned by the processing of messages only, not by
 > their reception.

I think I disagree. SOAP has nothing to say about processing a SOAP
message as it is being sent, or am I missing something fundamental?

Cheers?

Chris
Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> 
> Close. How about the following minor tweaks:
> 
> The SOAP processing model specifies[1] how a SOAP node processes[2] a 
> SOAP message. It applies to a single message only, in isolation from any 
> other SOAP message. The SOAP processing model itself does not[3] 
> maintain any state or perform any correlation or coordination between 
> messages[4], even, for example, when used in combination with a feature 
> which involves sending multiple SOAP messages in sequence, each 
> subsequent message depending on the response to the previous message. It 
> is the responsibility of each such features to define such combined[5] 
> processing.
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> [1] I don't remember whether there was any introductory context. In any 
> case, I thought an extra introductory sentence was necessary.
> 
 > [2] I like "processing" better than "receiving" here. I think it's up to
 > the MEP to specify what happens when a message is received. IMO, the
 > processing model is concerned by the processing of messages only, not by
 > their reception.
> 
> [3] I think the active is more appropriate than the passive here.
> 
> [4] "between messages" may not be necessary.
> 
> [5] I am unuse of the adjective to use here. I think we need to say 
> point out to features as being the place where you define such 
> functionality; but maybe you will think this should go into the MEP 
> section section?
> 
>> So, with that, here is a slight tweak:
>>
>>     The SOAP processing model applies to a SOAP node
>>     receiving a single message only, in isolation
>>     from any other SOAP message. There is no state,
>>     correlation or coordination at the SOAP processing
>>     model level, even, for example if using a feature
>>     which involves sending multiple messages in
>>     sequence, each subsequent message depending on
>>     the response to the previous message.
>>  
>>
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 07:02:10 GMT

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