- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:59:39 -0500
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
- Cc: XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Jackek Kopecky writes: >> I wouldn't like the text to suggest that >> inventing roles for various relaying >> semantics is necessarily a good practice >> because I have a feeling these would >> mostly be one-off deployment-specific specs. I agree. The case I had in mind is that people will invent roles that basically mean "the node named A". In other words, the common case where you know that a role is designed to be played by exactly one node. I am not proposing to generalize that in SOAP, but I'm wondering if it doesn't make sense in the recommendations for particular headers to say: "if you recognize the role (as you probably do if you're assuming the role), and you have knowledge that the role is designed to be played by exactly one node, then you MAY/MUST/SHOULD decline to relay the header. " We already say that the spec for a header can set relay rules for a header that is processed, so I think that such a specification is at least allowed by the SOAP processing model. I can see both sides of the question as to whether we should do it for the representation header in particular. One question: if we don't allow this, then why invent a "sticky" role? They would all be sticky, no? -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 11:01:18 UTC