- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:15:00 -0800
- To: XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
[comments/additions/corrections welcome.] * R803 - "... must not preclude the use of transport bindings that define transport intermediary roles..." The relationship between the transport binding and message is implied in "Using SOAP in HTTP": http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383526 SOAP doesn't have a firm conception of a protocol binding or the requirments placed upon it - HTTP is assumed. * R811 - "... must define and accommodate processing intermediaries." SOAP accommodates processing intermediaries, but does not define them. See also R806 and R808. * R806 - "... must define mechanisms that allow XP processors, including intermediaries, to identify XP blocks which they are eligible to process." SOAP allows targeting through the "actor" attribute. http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383499 The value of the attribute may be underspecified; currently, there is no standard way to refer to intermediaries with a URI. Additionally, it may be desireable to target an XP Block by means other than direct reference or 'hop-by-hop', as described. Also, SOAP's processing model does not dictate the order in which multiple headers should be processed, if targetted at the same processor. * R808 - "... must enable the generation of status and/or error messages by processing intermediaries, and enable propogation..." SOAP provides error and status reporting through SOAP Faults: http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383507 The 'faultactor' subelement satisfies this requirement. See notes in R806 regarding the value of this element. Also, it should be noted that the mechanism for communicating a SOAP Fault is necessarily transport binding-dependent. * R802 - "... must also enable processing intermediaries to locate and process XP blocks intended for them without processing the entire message." SOAP does not explicitly address this requirement, but it should be addressed by the 'actor' attribute, in that XP Blocks which were not targetted could be skipped over, depending on the processor implementation. -- Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA) ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2001 20:15:36 UTC