- From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 12:30:10 -0400
- To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
+1 to tech#1 I think though that the term is useful to the SOAP spec(s). Cheers, Chris Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > Is this for the Abstract Model or the spec? I am not sure we have to > define the term "application" at all for the spec - it doesn't appear in > the processing model as a formal SOAP concept. If the former then I > would say tech def #1 seems to fit the AM best. > > Henrik > > >(David, I hope it's okay to piggyback on your list...) > > > >Re: Issue #107: Application Def'n > > > >Stuart and I have come up with 3 potential def'ns for SOAP Application > >and would like feedback from the WG on which, if any, def'n we would > >like to include in the specification. > > > >Soft Defn #1: > >SOAP Application: > >A usage of SOAP (or the SOAP protocol). [as in SOAP applied to...] > > > >Techy Defn #1: > >SOAP Application: > >A (software) entity that makes use of the services provided by a SOAP > >Processor at a SOAP Node. A SOAP Application MAY embody one or more > >SOAP Actors and MAY function in an originating, intermediary or > >ultimate recipient role with respect to SOAP message processing. > > > >Techy Defn #2: > >SOAP Application: > >The aggregate behaviour of one or more SOAP Application Entities acting > > >together to perform some work on behalf of some community of interest > >or business. > > > >SOAP Application Entity: (identical to Techy Defn #1) > >A (software) entity that makes use of the services provided by a SOAP > >Processor at a SOAP Node. A SOAP Application Entity MAY embody one or > >more SOAP Actors and MAY function in an originating, intermediary or > >ultimate recipient role with respect to SOAP message processing. > > > >Of the four options (Soft Defn #1, Techy Defn #1, Techy Defn #2, and no > >definition) we prefer Techy Defn #1 but will bow to the wishes of the > >WG. Also, we wonder if we should include a SOAP Actor defn in the > >Terminology section?
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2001 12:30:14 UTC