- From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:29:09 -0700
- To: "'Katia Sycara'" <katia@cs.cmu.edu>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
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