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

RE: final decision on well-formedness checking

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 11:36:53 -0700
Message-ID: <7C083876C492EB4BAAF6B3AE0732970E0B627DED@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Just to make sure I understand, you are advocating something like:

1.	Intermediary receives SOAP message

2.	Intermediary begins to parse stream 

3.	Intermediary gets to end of soap:Header. Everything is
well-formed up to this point and intermediary has processed all headers
targetted at it.

4.	Intermediary stops doing XML parsing and just streams the rest
of the message ( the soap:Body and descendants, plus the closing
</soap:Envelope> to the next node.

Is that roughly whay you're looking for?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: 07 May 2003 07:49
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: final decision on well-formedness checking
> What was the final verdict from the discussion on whether a 
> SOAP impl needs to do well-formedness checking? 
> I would prefer if one could respond with a non well-formed 
> response for bad requests such as those rather than to force 
> every implementation to walk thru the whole message before 
> doing anything.
> Streaming is dammed in that case.
> It seems to me that non well-formed requests are VERY 
> unlikely (especially on TCP style streaming/reliable 
> transports) except in the case of major SOAP stack bugs. 
> Forcing well-formedness checking would cut out a major perf 
> improvement opportunity to cover a case that's way off the 
> 80-20 or 90-10 or even 95-5 split.
> Thanks,
> Sanjiva.
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 14:38:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:23 UTC