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

RE: Discussion summary 2: Proposal for clarifying relationship be tween SOAP modules and features

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:31:14 -0500
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB0254FC80@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, XMLP Public <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, Herve Ruellan <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>


Hi all, sorry to arrive late to the party...

A minor tweak:

> 1) Part 1, section 3.1 "SOAP Features"
> --------------------------------------
> 
> <current>
> For the purpose of this specification, the term "feature" is
> used to identify an extension of the SOAP messaging
> framework typically associated with the exchange of messages
> between communicating SOAP nodes. Although SOAP poses no
> constraints on the potential scope of such features, example
> features include "reliability", "security", "correlation",
> and "routing". In addition, the communication might require
> a variety of message exchange patterns (MEPs) such as one-
> way messages, request/response interactions, and peer-to-
> peer conversations. MEPs are considered to be a type of
> feature, and unless otherwise stated, references in this
> specification to the term "feature" apply also to MEPs. The
> request-response MEP specified in [SOAP Part2] illustrates
> the specification of a MEP feature.
> </current>
> 
> <proposed>
> *A SOAP feature is* an extension of the SOAP messaging
> framework. *A SOAP feature is either associated with* the
> *transfer and processing of individual* SOAP messages *or
> with the exchange of related messages according to a given*
> message exchange pattern (MEP). *Examples of the former type
> of* features *are* "reliability", "security", "correlation"
> and "routing". *Example of the second type of features
> (MEPs) are* one-way messages, request/response interactions,
> and peer-to-peer conversations.
> </proposed>

I need to read back through the archive to see the rationale for this change, but I think the <current> version is, frankly, much clearer.  The term "associated with" does not make it very clear in the latter part of the proposed version that an MEP ISA feature, which I think is important to do here as we're introducing the concept.  It's not good enough to just say it in the MEP-specific section, IMHO.  Another option might be something like:

<proposed-GD>
A SOAP feature is an extension of the SOAP messaging framework.
Although SOAP poses no constraints on the potential scope of
such features, example features may include "reliability",
"security", "correlation", "routing", and message exchange
patterns (MEPs) such as request/response, one-way, and
peer-to-peer conversations.
</proposed-GD>

The rest of the changes seem ok to me.

Thanks for doing this work, gents,
--Glen
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2002 11:31:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT