RE: Issues to think about in the MOM

Frank,

> SOAP 1.2 seems essentially silent on the transport aspects of messages.

I don't fully understand what you are referring to. Could you please clarify?

Thank you,
Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Frank McCabe
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:18 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Issues to think about in the MOM
> 
> 
> 
> Some issues to consider in the MOM
> 
> 1. Does correlation still belong?
> 2. Should we have message intermediaries?
>    Pro: Allows us to explain router-style intermediaries
>    Con: If a message has been modified in *any* way, is it still the 
> same message
> 3. The SOAP notion of an envelope is essentially the outer wrapper of 
> the message infoset. However, SOAP 1.2 seems essentially 
> silent on the 
> transport aspects of messages. I don't think we should be so silent; 
> especially since we cannot explain routers without it. However, the 
> natural place for this is in the envelope (after all, envelopes have 
> addresses written on them!)
> 3a. In effect, is an address that is used by a transport 
> mechanism part 
> of the message or not? What about message oriented audit 
> trails? (Where 
> the message carries with it a record of its trajectory through the 
> system.)
> 3b. The current definition of envelope is not really consistent with 
> the SOAP view. However, it *does* capture the concept of a message's 
> address.
> 4. The diagram that is in the text does not reflect the 
> discussion that 
> we had in Palo Alto. That includes delivery policies as well as 
> intermediaries.
> 
> Probably there is more, but this is a pretty good list already!
> 
> Frank
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 20 November 2003 01:36:25 UTC