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

Re: SOAP intermediaries (Some unprocessed headers should stay)

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:39:10 -0400
To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8271723A.8FD76462-ON85256C54.00668288@lotus.com>

I agree.  A drawback of the relay role approach allows only one role with 
the "keep it" semantic.  I can go either way, with probably a slight 
personal preference to change the default for all roles to be "keep if 
unprocessed."   I suggested the role approach as it had come closest to 
generating informal concensus among the small group who were informally 
discussing the problem.  As I say, I can go either way, and I think our 
analysis is correct.  I have no special insight into what would be viewed 
as a big or a small change wrt/ process.  Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
10/16/2002 08:29 AM

 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     xml-dist-app@w3.org
        Subject:        SOAP intermediaries (Some unprocessed headers should stay)


Noah,

[Sorry to appear to be changing my tune...]

I'm thinking some more about the SOAP relay-header problem you raised.

I don't know if this is a reasonable use-case, but it might illustrate a 
possible difficulty:

Contemplating an information distribution network, a SOAP sender may wish 
to include information to all transcoding proxies on the message path, 
maybe communicating a preference for size or fidelity when applying format 

conversions.  It seems to me that the SOAP role identifier would be the 
natural place to target a header to any "transcodingProxies".  The 
proposed 
use of the "relay" role to describe the "drop or forward" behaviour for 
unrecognized headers would seem to preempt this use of the role 
identifier.

I find myself leaning more towards preference of the 'relayIfNotProcessed' 

option (which doesn't seem like such a big addition to me):

         <soap:Header>
                 <nrm:myHeader role="..any role you like..."
                                 mustUnderstand="false"
                                 relayIfNotProcessed="true">
                         ...
                 </nrm:myHeader>
         </soap:Header>

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 14:42:32 GMT

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