RE: Intermediaries - various cases

The issue here is to understand what is the concept of SOAP intermediaries
as defined by SOAP 1.2 and to use that concept properly within the
architecture document. If we talk about intermediaries and we refer to
something else (logical intermediaries, etc.) we should clearly specify that
it's not the same as SOAP intermediaries, otherwise most people familiar
with SOAP would probably understand it in the SOAP sense and get confused.

>An additional point is that it is just a matter of current implementation
>that the SOAP processor is the end point of processing SOAP messages and it
>has a different mechanism (other than SOAP) to communicate with the
>application. In the future this could change.

Fine, when the node communicates with the application using SOAP it could be
a SOAP intermediary. If currently it does not, then it cannot be a SOAP
intermediary. SOAP intermediary is SOAP in / SOAP out.

Ugo

-----Original Message-----
From: Katia Sycara [mailto:katia@cs.cmu.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 5:09 PM
To: Ugo Corda; 'Anne Thomas Manes'; Ricky Ho
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Intermediaries - various cases


I am not sure why we care whether the SOAP processor is an intermediary or
the receiver of the message.
 At the logical level, the application is the receiver of the message (since
it is the receiver application that must do something that the requestor is
asking it to do, e.g. make a travel reservation). In that view the SOAP
processor is an intermediary.
 An additional point is that it is just a matter of current implementation
that the SOAP processor is the end point of processing SOAP messages and it
has a different mechanism (other than SOAP) to communicate with the
application. In the future this could change.
  --Katia

Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 20:29:40 UTC