- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:36:04 -0700
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, XML dist app <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>, David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Just to make sure I understand - On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 08:23:31PM -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > 0) Blocks are fundamentally unordered from a processing point of view. On the call, you read this as processing is atomic - i.e., a fault is generated or not generated, not generated for a particular header. Some people read this as 'ordering of headers in the message does not indicate order of processing', but I don't think this was your intent. Or was it? This implies the ability of Modules to rollback their actions if a later module faults (as Noah discussed). > 1) A SOAP intermediary MUST NOT reorder header entries. It may add > header entries anywhere in the message > > 2) Dependencies are indicated in one of two ways: > > * Simple XML encapsulation in which the SOAP header is somewhat > out of the picture as the encapsulation happens with a > header entry This relies on the XML structure, including ordering of elements, to determine processing order. > * By referring to other header entries using links. In this case > we can say that such links SHOULD point *forward* in the > message This relies on the traversal of a graph, described by module attributes (for example) to determine ordering of processing, as described by Noah's document (with modifications as indicated to handle Glen's concern; this still relies on processing according to the XML structure ordering). > 3) It is allowed to introduce trailers after the body but only if a > header points to them indicating that the trailer will follow and > what it will contain (we don't define this). The SOAP/1.1 schema > actually allows this but the description of how to deal with > trailers is very vague. Why is it necessary to point to them with a Module? If we're defining a processing model for other blocks, it seems that it would cover these as well; we'd just need to define constraints for their actor (as discussed previously). -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 17:36:09 UTC