W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2003

RE: concatenating web services

From: Don Box <dbox@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:35:15 -0800
Message-ID: <57EF69AF56D92148984EDA3174082945040F993C@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 6:44 PM
> To: Don Box
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Don Box wrote on 02/10/2003 12:11:35 PM:
> <snip/>
> >
> > For what it's worth, the team I work on (we build the SOAP stack for
> > company's operating system) has done a fair amount of navel
> > contemplation on this one. Our primary conclusion was that because
> > has no notion of message identity, intermediaries have a great deal
> > freedom. That stated, here are some guidelines to think about:
> >
> > 1) Intermediaries SHOULD NOT contradict the intention of the
> > sender and the ultimate receiver. When these two conflict, the
> > receiver's intention wins.
> Intention for what? This guideline seems to me to have a very
> bias. In a
> pub/sub environment, neither the intent of the message publisher nor
> of
> the message's subscriber(s) is necessarily known to any other than
> In fact,
> the publisher may not be aware of the existance of the subscriber(s).
> is an
> intermediary to "know", or even guess at the intent of the ultimate
> recipient?
> Can the intent of the original sender be "known" to be anything more
> that
> it intends the message to be delivered to the ultimate recipient?

Sure. For example, based on the namespace affiliation of the root
element of the SOAP message, I am indicating that I intend all nodes
along the message path to adhere to a specific version of SOAP.

In the case of broadly-adopted SOAP modules/header blocks, the presence
of a WS-Security header block indicates that I intended you to know that
this message was indeed from me (for some definition of "me"). 

Or it may be as simple as "I want you to know that the third element
contains a double (or at least that was what I intended when I formed
the message)." 

> >
> > 2) Intermediaries SHOULD NOT change the "action" of the message. If
> > are going this far, consider becoming an ultimate receiver.
> What is the "action" of the message?

Ahhh, sorry for the old-school interpretation. What I meant to say was
"the set of QNames used as GIs for SOAP header blocks + the ordered
sequence of QNames used as GIs for soap body parts" :-)

Received on Monday, 10 February 2003 22:35:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:22 UTC