Re: An analysis of mustUnderstand and related issues

Perhaps I wasn't clear - if someone doesn't use the feature then
they're stuck using the current SOAP spec, and if we don't change
the current spec then they're also stuck with the current ambiguity.
So, I believe that whether or not we do a feature like this we still
need to update the spec.
-Dug


Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com@w3.org on 05/15/2001 10:13:16 AM

Sent by:  xml-dist-app-request@w3.org


To:   Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject:  Re: An analysis of mustUnderstand and related issues



Doug Davis writes:

>> Just wondering, if we go with this
>> approach, what does it mean if
>> people don't use it?

My suggestion would be, when you don't use the new feature, you get SOAP
semantics.  Behavior would change only on headers where the new attributes
were actually used:

* if a header says mustHappen, then when processed your header must be
replaced by hasHappened

* if a header says dependsOn, then fault if precursors haven't happened

Other than that, not changes I think.  Keep in mind, this proposal is
intended as a point of discussion.  I think it's worth considering, but we
should compare it to whatever alternatives before becoming wedded to it.

Even if we like the general idea, I think we should definitely explore the
alternatives for exactly how we represent the dependency information in
the message.  For example, I'm starting to change my mind:  maybe we can
find a convention that's reasonably convenient and also models as a clean
"module" (I.e. the existing mustUnderstand is used on some header to
ensure that the new features are understood.)  I have some rough ideas on
how to do this, which I will try to set down if I hit any breaks in the
W3C schema meeting (where I am for the next two days.)  Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2001 15:52:02 UTC