- From: <jones@research.att.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:30:29 -0500 (EST)
- To: RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com, jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
+1 to Jean-Jacques's reply. The SOAP headers are a general extensibility and modularity mechanism just as suitable for modularly constructed applications as for use by the "messaging" layer. Indeed, until general standards for security, reliability, asynchronous messaging, conversations, etc. are in place, these are all being currently handled at the application level, often using SOAP headers. My feeling is that this is analogous to programming language libraries. Common, useful functionality is eventually standardized into widely supported standard libraries so that each application does not have to re-invent such things, so that code will be more portable, etc. Application-specific libraries are also often a useful thing, too. --mark Mark A. Jones AT&T Labs -- Strategic Standards Division Shannon Laboratory Room 2A02 180 Park Ave. Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 email: jones@research.att.com phone: (973) 360-8326 fax: (973) 236-6453 From www-ws-arch-request@w3.org Mon Feb 17 03:17 EST 2003 Delivered-To: jones@research.att.com X-Authentication-Warning: mail-red.research.att.com: postfixfilter set sender to www-ws-arch-request@w3.org using -f Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 03:16:55 -0500 (EST) Resent-Message-Id: <200302170816.h1H8Gtq09775@frink.w3.org> X-Authentication-Warning: lancelot.crf.canon.fr: smap set sender to <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr> using -f Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 09:15:57 +0100 From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Cutler Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Applications are allowed to process SOAP header blocks (was: Messaging Service Layer) X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/3E509A3D.9060108@crf.canon.fr Resent-From: www-ws-arch@w3.org X-Mailing-List: <www-ws-arch@w3.org> archive/latest/4354 X-Loop: www-ws-arch@w3.org Resent-Sender: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org List-Id: <www-ws-arch.w3.org> List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,NOSPAM_INC,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA, X_ACCEPT_LANG,X_AUTH_WARNING,X_LOOP,X_MAILING_LIST version=2.43-cvs X-Spam-Level: I have to disagree. There is nothing in the SOAP specification that indicates that header blocks are to be processed only by the messaging layer and not by the application. The SOAP specification is mute on that aspect and is only concerned with what happens at a given (SOAP) node, independently of what layer performs the processing. Quoting section 2.6, Processing SOAP Messages: <quote> Process all mandatory SOAP header blocks targeted at the node and, in the case of an ultimate SOAP receiver, the SOAP body. A SOAP node MAY also choose to process non-mandatory SOAP header blocks targeted at it. </quote> Jean-Jacques. [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part1.html#procsoapmsgs Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote: > The messaging layer is in charge of what > is in the SOAP headers, whereas the application layer is responsible for > the body. More specifically, the messaging layer might mess around with > the body by doing things like encrypting it, but after decryption the > messaging layer would hand the body to the application layer of the > receiver exactly as the body was given to it by the sender. The > messaging layer has no business changing the data in the body -- as far > as it is concerned the body is just bits or characters. And I think > that it also has no business trying to analyze the contents of the data > in the body. > > If you agree with the preceding statements I think it may have > consequences down the line that are non-trivial. The last statement may > be a bit strong, but that's the way it seems to me other layers work.
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 10:32:26 UTC