W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Issue 455 closed: Representation header and SOAP processing model

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>
Message-ID: <OFB7EE1E93.AF42C435-ON85256E5C.0057A1CE@lotus.com>

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:16 GMT