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

RE: Are gateways SOAP intermediaries?

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:23:23 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D086184C8@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Mark,

The first question is of course what a gateway is but if we strictly
look at it from a SOAP node perspective, then I don't think the SOAP
spec has much to say about gateways. In general, I think the answer to
your question is no, gateways are not SOAP intermediaries. One could
imagine SOAP intermediaries being underlying protocol gateways but that
is, I think a different question.

Btw, I agree with your proposal:

>P.S. section 2.1 redefines "SOAP intermediary" in the second 
>sentence of the first paragraph, differently than in section 
>1.4.3.  I suggest it be removed from 2.1.

Henrik

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] 
>Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 11:37
>To: xmlp-comments@w3.org
>Subject: Are gateways SOAP intermediaries?
>
>
>
>The current definition of a SOAP intermediary says;
>
>  "A SOAP intermediary is both a SOAP receiver and a SOAP sender and is
>   targetable from within a SOAP message. It processes the SOAP header
>   blocks targeted at it and acts to forward a SOAP message towards an
>   ultimate SOAP receiver."
>
>"SOAP message path" is defined as;
>
>  "The set of SOAP nodes through which a single SOAP message passes.
>   This includes the initial SOAP sender, zero or more SOAP
>   intermediaries, and an ultimate SOAP receiver.
>
>"Ultimate SOAP receiver" includes this in its definition;
>
>  "An ultimate SOAP receiver cannot also be a SOAP intermediary for the
>   same SOAP message"
>
>The second definition suggests that the ultimate SOAP receiver 
>cannot itself be a SOAP intermediary.  The third point 
>explicitly says this, though with the qualification "for the 
>same SOAP message" (which is unclear).  But the first, in the 
>first sentence, would seem to include gateways in its 
>definition, as they meet all three criteria; SOAP receiver, 
>SOAP sender, targettable.
>
>At this late stage, I'm only going to ask that the 
>specification be clear about how gateways fit, or don't, as 
>the case may be.
>
>Thanks.
>
>P.S. section 2.1 redefines "SOAP intermediary" in the second 
>sentence of the first paragraph, differently than in section 
>1.4.3.  I suggest it be removed from 2.1.
>
>(speaking only for myself)
>
>MB
>-- 
>Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
>Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
>http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
>
>

Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 13:23:56 GMT

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