RE: PROPOSAL: Drop interface/operation/(input|output)/@headers

> From: Glen Daniels [mailto:gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com]
> 
> Hi Jeff!

Hi!

> I think that the question Dave Orchard just asked bears strongly on
the
> answer to this with respect to role and relay.  Until we have some
> reasonable model with which to deal with intermediaries, I'm not sure
how
> much we can really talk about them

Does the value of @role always indicate an intermediary? May it indicate
a processing function within the ultimate receiver? If the latter,
wouldn't it be up to the server to indicate which processing roles it
wanted to fulfill? 

> - I agree with Dave that we should
> think
> about it.  

Agreed.

> That said, however, the extension I'm imagining really just
> fills
> a bag with data for anyone to read - so the header in question
probably
> should be targeted at the "none" actor.

Doesn't the spec say that SOAP nodes must not act in this role?

> With respect to mustUnderstand, I'm not sure it makes sense to mark
the
> individual "cookions" as MU.  For example, one of the ones people seem
to
> talk about a lot is a "dispatch key" - some value that you put in a
header
> to allow an endpoint to uniquely target the correct piece of handler
code,
> even in the face of multiple operations sharing the same body data.
Why
> would you mark such a thing MU?  You use MU="true" to indicate
extensions
> which the *sender* requires the *receiver* to understand - in this
case,
> it's the receiver (the server) who needs the data, and they're going
to
> throw a fault if it's missing, but they don't care if it's marked MU
or
> not.

Why would the client care how the server wanted MU set? Or why it wanted
MU set?

> Do you have other examples of this kind of data that you feel needs
the MU
> bit?

SOAP headers are a kind of extension to Body content, where MU=1
indicates a mandatory extension. If a vertical standards org is defining
WSDL, they may need to indicate that a particular extension is mandatory
for compliant implementations.

> --Glen
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
> To: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>; "Roberto Chinnici"
> <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>; "Sanjiva Weerawarana"
<sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
> Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 8:47 PM
> Subject: RE: PROPOSAL: Drop
interface/operation/(input|output)/@headers
> 
> 
> > So I think it's a pretty simple matter to define a "sideband data"
> SOAP
> > module which simply takes a property consisting of a set of
elements,
> and
> > inserts them as SOAP headers.
> 
> Do you see any value in allowing the WSDL to specify actor/role,
> mustUnderstand, and/or relay for such 'cookie-esque' header blocks?
> 
> --Jeff
>

Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 12:03:14 UTC