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

RE: Final Proposal for Issue 41

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:48:53 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D05A54184@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <amr.f.yassin@philips.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Stuart,

FWIW, I don't have anything particularly against the amended formulation
but I am wondering whether we are not already covered with the current
spec. In several places we state that routing, message exchange
patterns, etc. are features and as such we expect that they may be
defined although it is out of scope for us to say how.

Btw, I agree that not having a standardized mechanism would be bad but I
don't think we should say anything about when and how that might happen
in the spec. Hopefully the spec will stay around for a long time!

Henrik

-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Stuart [mailto:skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 03:46
To: 'amr.f.yassin@philips.com'
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: RE: Final Proposal for Issue 41


Amr,

A couple of things... firstly the issue is about the there being no
provision *within a SOAP envelope* to identify the target "program,
service or object " so... I think the first sentence need to be extended
with "...within a SOAP Envelope." I think this is true of the ultimate
recipient, but we do provide a means (within the envelope) to identify
the role that SOAP header blocks are targetted to.

I am also uncomfortable that we place the responsibility on application
designers to effectively develop routing extensions for themselves. I
think applications designers will be looking to us for a set of
standardised SOAP extensions - otherwise we head for an interoperability
nightmare.So, I believe that responsibility comes back to this group
(probably under some future charter) to provide a single standardised
extension for the expression of message paths and the identification of
ultimate recipients.

<amended proposal>
Add the following text to (Part 1 Section 7: Use of URI in SOAP): 

SOAP 1.2 does not provide any normative means to carry the identity of
the ultimate recipient within a SOAP envelope. SOAP 1.2 does provide a
means to identify the roles that a SOAP header block is targetted to.

SOAP 1.2 does not provide any normative means for the expression of a
message path with a SOAP envelope. However, it does provide means for
the development of SOAP extensions that provides for such expression
within SOAP header blocks. [Work to define a message routing extension
for SOAP may be the subject of future WG activity within the W3C.]
</amended proposal>

For the most part we have not actually addressed the issue, and I think
we should say so rather than cast it as a responsibility on the
app.developer. I've put the lats sentence in [] to make it optional,
since it sets some expectation - which may be inappropriate given that
they lay outside our current charter.

Regards

Stuart
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 15:20:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT