- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 15:13:04 -0000
- To: "'Doug Davis'" <dug@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Doug, Thanks... rant away... Stuart > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] > Sent: 06 November 2001 14:38 > To: Williams, Stuart > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: RE: Issue 146 (default and anon actors, endpoints > and ultimate > re cipients - for danbri :-)) > > > Sure, as long as I can continue on my rant. :-) > -Dug > > > "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com> on 11/06/2001 09:35:18 AM > > To: Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: RE: Issue 146 (default and anon actors, endpoints > and ultimate re > cipients - for danbri :-)) > > > > Hi Dug, > > Whilst its tempting to dig into discussing the issue, I'd like to know > whether you'd like any changes in the way I've stated the issue: > > "The terms 'default actor', 'anonymous actor', 'ultimate > recipient' and > 'SOAP Endpoint' are being used loosely as synonyms. It is not > clear whether > 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 > actor, > anonymous actor, ultimate recipient or SOAP endpoint?" > > I'm hoping that you think its 'good enough' to enable discussion (and > ultimately resolution). > > Thanks, > > Stuart > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] > > Sent: 06 November 2001 13:03 > > To: xml-dist-app@w3.org > > Subject: RE: Issue 146 > > > > > > Stuart, > > Yep, sorry, I misunderstood your note. Related to the > issue at hand, > > I'm wondering how people view the following example: > > <env> > > <headers> > > <h1 MU="1"/> > > <h2 MU="1"/> > > </headers> > > <body.../> > > </env> > > > > h1 and h2 don't have actor attributes. > > As you said in your note, people are using the terms default actor, > > anonymous actor and ultimate recipient interchangeably, so can h1 > > and h2 be processed by anyone other than the ultimate recipient? > > I always thought so. I interpreted it this way: > > - any node along the message path may process untargeted headers > > as long as they fully understand the semantics of the header > > - the ultimate recipient, however, MUST assume the role of > > default/anonymous actor. Meaning that it MUST process h1 and h2 > > if they are still in the message. > > The main reason I see behind allowing other nodes to assume the role > > of the anon actor is that a client knows nothing about the message > > path - all it really knows is the one/next node it is supposed to > > send it's message to. So, there will be times when it does not know > > what Nodes the message will pass through and as such can't control > > which Node along the message path will process which part - so by > > leaving the "actor" off (IMO) it is saying "I don't care which exact > > Node processes this header, just as long as it does get processed > > (hence the MU="1")." > > So, while I agree that the ultimate recipient is also the > default/anon > > actor - I do not agree that a Node that acts as a default/anon > > actor is also the ultimate recipient. > > Am I alone in this interpretation? > > -Dug > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 10:16:27 UTC