- From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 13:31:32 -0400
- To: <jones@research.att.com>, <jacek@idoox.com>, <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
How about; <env:Envelope xmlns:env='http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope' > <env:StuffYouMUstUnderstand> <!-- Stuff the end point must understand goes here --> </env:StuffYouMustUnderstand> <!-- streaming point is now here --> <env:Stuff> <!-- Stuff you don't have to understand (including stuff referenced from above) goes here --> </env:Stuff> </env:Envelope> or <env:Envelope xmlns:env='http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope' > <env:Stuff mustUnderstand='1' > <!-- Stuff the end point must understand goes here --> </env:Stuff> <!-- streaming point is now here --> <env:Stuff> <!-- Stuff you don't have to understand (including stuff referenced from above) goes here --> </env:Stuff> </env:Envelope> Gudge ----- Original Message ----- From: <jones@research.att.com> To: <jacek@idoox.com>; <moreau@crf.canon.fr> Cc: <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:35 PM Subject: Re: Issue 25 Proposal > As I pointed out at Dinard, the decision to require doing all mU > checks without side-effect effectively moved the "streaming point" to > the body (possibly also including the start element of the body at the > final destination in order to verify that it can also be understood). > [Yes, I know that a "clever" implementation can go ahead and stream > through the headers as long as it can roll back results, but > practically speaking, the streaming point is now at the body.] > > If we decide to permit blocks containing mU semantics after the body, > then Jacek correctly points out that we will have moved the practical > streaming point to the end of the message. > > It seems to me that the options are: > 1) trailers are not blocks but are referenceable elements > (keep in mind that header blocks can also function simply > as referenced blocks) > 2) trailers are targettable blocks but must have mU=0 > 3) trailers are just like header blocks (targettable and can have mU=1) > > Options 1) and 2) keep the practical streaming point at the body. As > Jacek points out, 2) leaves you with the possibility of faulting after > you have successfully processed the body, but it also may be valuable > to cuase additional processing after the body in some cases. Option > 3) requires checking the entire message, practically eliminating > streaming any part of the message. > > I'm not sure whether I prefer 1) or 2), but I think it would be a > mistake to adopt 3). > > > We seem to flirt from time-to-time with eliminating the > header/body/trailer distinction. Another possibility is to make a > break with SOAP 1.1 syntax and simply have a set of blocks in which we > syntactically distinguish a streaming point if so desired. This point > is the point after which we guarantee not to place/find any additional > mU=1 blocks. > > > --mark > > > Mark A. Jones > AT&T Labs - Research > Shannon Laboratory > Room A201 > 180 Park Ave. > Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 > > email: jones@research.att.com > phone: (973) 360-8326 > fax: (973) 360-8970 >
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 17:04:53 UTC