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

ROR proposal issue #3 (aka SC3)

From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:16:18 -0800
Message-ID: <A5F46F7A688C084782E8C52B76368613025CB5B1@sdebe101.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

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 Friday, 31 March 2006 23:16:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:21 GMT