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

Re: Issues 12 & 192

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:09:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200203270309.WAA20669@markbaker.ca>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: highland.m.mountain@intel.com (Mountain Highland M), xml-dist-app@w3.org
Noah,

> The second point above makes clear that no binding can make a 
> determination as to how a SOAP envelope is to be interpreted;

This statement appears to assume that the binding is somehow a separate
layer that only sees the envelope given to it by a SOAP processor.  I
see no such distinction in any of our work, nor do I believe it
necessary.  I believe we've had this discussion before, with Henrik
taking the same position that I'm taking (IIRC).  The developer should
know which application protocol they're using.

IMO, this is yet another artifact of the chameleon/tunnel distinction.

> In short, I disagree strongly with the suggestion that any binding would 
> be the principal determinant of whether a message carried a SOAP fault.  I 
> do think that a well constructed binding can ensure that there is never 
> disagreement between what's in the envelope and signals encoded in the 
> underlying protocol.  In such cases, the binding-specific signal may be 
> taken as a highly reliable hint.

I understand.

Are you ok with the resolution to issue 12?

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 22:04:48 GMT

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