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

Re: Are gateways SOAP intermediaries?

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:57:24 -0400
Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Message-Id: <3BC47D82-DA1E-11D6-853A-0003937568DC@sun.com>

On Monday, Oct 7, 2002, at 13:23 US/Eastern, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 
wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I agree. A SOAP intermediary is both a SOAP receiver and a SOAP sender 
and is targetable from within a SOAP message *but* not everthing that 
is both a SOAP receiver and a SOAP sender and is targetable from within 
a SOAP message is a SOAP intermediary. I think a gateway falls into the 
latter camp.

> 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.
>
+1.

Marc.

>
>> -----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
>>
>>
> <smime.p7s>
--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 13:58:11 GMT

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