Re: Issue 146

Stuart Wrote:
>"The terms 'default actor', 'anonymous actor', 'ultimate recipient' and
>'SOAP Endpoint' are being used loosely as synonyms. It is not clear
>a SOAP Node acting as default actor, anon actor, ultimate recipient, or
>endpoint with respect to a given SOAP message may behave as SOAP
>intermediary and relay the SOAP message to further SOAP Nodes. Stated
>differently: Does a SOAP Message Path always terminate at the default
>anonymous actor, ultimate recipient or SOAP endpoint?"
>Before, substantively discussing the issue, I would first ask for
>confirmation that the above sufficiently describes the issue.

Reading the issue 140 (How does an actor know that it is the ultimate
recipient?), I don't think the questions you asked not are the right ones -
at least not the way I read it.  I interpreted the issue more a long
the lines of "how does a SOAP node know whether or not it is acting
as an intermediary or as the ultimate recipient?"
The questions you've asked are looking at a different issue - you're
focused on whether a message path ends at the ultimate recipient - and
I believe the answer to that one must be "yes" (in the non-error case).
If the ultimate recipient does relay the SOAP message on to a new SOAP
node then that doesn't change the role(s) that Node was playing.  It is
perfectly valid for a SOAP node to initiate a "new" message path - which
is what I believe your questions are eluding to - the key being that any
forwarding from the ultimate recipient is a "new" message and a "new"
message path.  To me, the question  is whether that "forwarding"
that is taking place is because a new message path is being initiated,
or whether it is taking place because this node believes it is not the
ultimate recipient.  Right now the spec does not indicate how a Node
should make this determination - nor should it (IMO).

To me, the more generic question should be - "how does a SOAP node know the
roles it is playing?"  Whether that determination is getting the list
of actors it plays, or whether it is determining whether or not it is
an intermediary or the ultimate recipient - it's all related.  And all
outside the scope of the spec - it's an exercise left up to the
coder.  8-)


Received on Monday, 5 November 2001 10:15:32 UTC