W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2006

Re: ROR proposal issue #3 (aka SC3)

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:34:13 -0400
To: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF2DDBA7CF.2FDD9657-ON8525715C.0055562D-8525715C.005586E0@us.ibm.com>
Fulfilling my AI:

I propose that the wording be revised to:

(Option 1, CF)
'Start of response available in 

Essentially, removing the "envelope" aspect such that it is clear that the
envelope is only one of the properties of the OutboundMessage


Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295

xml-dist-app-request@w3.org wrote on 03/31/2006 06:16:18 PM:

> I took an action to explode the substantive comments on the ROR 
> proposal individually out to the ML. This is one of three.
> Thx, Mike 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Issue: Does/can OutboundMessage abstraction handle the 202/204 
> case? Can an OutboundMessage have no envelope?
> Target: Table 7 - "Receiving" row
> Commenters: Chris Ferris (CF), Dave Orchard (DO)
> Comments:
> In the Transition column it reads: 
> '***Either a) Start of response envelope available in 
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage or b)indication 
> from the application that no such envelope is to be send in the 
> response.'
> The definition of OutboundMessage is: 'An abstract structure that 
> represents the current outbound message in the message exchange. 
> This abstracts both SOAP Envelope and any other information 
> structures that are transferred along with the envelope'. 
> It seems to me that in the case of an HTTP 202 Accepted response, 
> that something needs to tell the binding that the message was 
> accepted. I would have thought that that would constitute "other 
> information structures", but maybe not? Does this mean that there's 
> a missing property? Something that indicates to the binding layer 
> the disposition of the received message? 
> Furthermore, in the Action column it reads: 
> '***Initiate transmission of response message. If an envelope is 
> provided in abstracted in 
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage then include 
> that in the response message.'
> The part that says: "if an envelope is provided in abstracted..." 
> seems to imply that the envelope is optional in the OutboundMessage 
> (in the context of the responding SOAP node), which seems to suggest 
> as I did above, that the disposition is actually a part of the 
> abstraction of OutboundMessage. I think that it will be important 
> that we make this clear and consistent. I personally think that in 
> all cases, there is an OutboundMessage. It may, or may not as the 
> case may be, contain a SOAP envelope. 
> Proposed edits/actions:
> From: 
> '***Either a) Start of response envelope available in 
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage or b) 
> indication from the application that no such envelope is to be 
> send in the response.'
> To: 
> (Option 1, CF)
> 'Start of response envelope available in 
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage'.'
> (Option 2, DO) 
> I would think that setting a "null" for the response 
> envelope in the OutboundMessage does this. I have purposefully 
> underspecified this. Regarding Action - prefer Noah's formulation. 
> I don't think that a null envelope is a response envelope. It's 
> a response that is in the OutboundMessage but it's not an envelope. 
> (DO)
> Refs:. 
> (1) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jan/0062.html 
> (2) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jan/0092.html
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2006 15:34:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:29 UTC