RE: Issue 146 proposed resolution

Folks,

This thread seems to have gone a little cold having toured the issue and
then gone on to discuss the removal of actor as a core feature [1] and the
distinction between mustUnderstand and mustHappen [2]. What we don't seem to
have is any alternate proposal to the one that Henrik posted ahead of last
weeks call.

> The suggested resolution to issue 146 is to add a paragraph like this:
> 
> "A SOAP node that is acting in the role of the ultimate destination is
> responsible for processing all parts of the message intended for the
> anonymous actor including the body according to the rules described in
> this section."

I think that the nub of the issue discussed in this thread is whether "...
the rules described in
this section." preclude an ultimate recipient from relaying the message
further along a message path.

To be honest, I don't see anything in Section 2.5 that precludes the
anonymous actor for the message (which be emergent) from relaying the
message further. I agree with Noah [3] that the anonymous actor is the
endpoint from the point-of-view of a SOAP message path and that an endpoint
should be just that. I am also happy that the endpoint/anon actor be may
emergent as the message traverses a path which I think is one of Henriks
concerns, from [4]:

> Another formulation is like this: "One knows who the ultimate 
> destination is once the message gets there but not necessarily before."

The key phrase for me in Henrik's proposal is "...the ultimate destination
is responsible for processing all parts of the message intended for the
anonymous actor including the body...". 

For me this means that the anonymous actor takes responsibility for the
processing the body (and other headers targetted at anon) according to the
semantics body block (modulo targetted header processing). Whether it
delegates part of the responsibility elsewhere, and whether it uses SOAP to
interact with entities that that it delegates to I think is immaterial...
the anon actor take responsibility to ensure that the appropriate processing
is done. I think that (logically) makes it the endpoint from the
point-of-view of the message exchange in progress.

It may be that others don't read this into the 'taking of responsibility',
in which case we might want to state this more clearly... how about:

"A SOAP Node that acts in the role of the anonymous actor with respect to a
particular SOAP message becomes the ultimate recipient of that SOAP message.
Such a SOAP node is responsible for processing all parts of the message
intended for the anonymous actor, including the body, according to the rules
described in this section. The SOAP message path for that message ends at
the ultimate recipient. However, the ultimate recipient may delegate all or
part of its responsibility to other entities. The ultimate recipient may
happen to use distinct SOAP message exchanges to interact with such
entities. Nevertheless, responsibility for the processing of parts of a SOAP
message targetted at the anonymous actor rests with the ultimate recipient
of that message".

Comments, flames etc...

Regards

Stuart
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0165.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0174.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0136.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0140.html



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com]
> Sent: 14 November 2001 18:46
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Cc: Stuart' 'Williams (E-mail)
> Subject: Issue 146 proposed resolution
> 
> 
> 
> Stuart and I chatted about our action item regarding issue 146 [1] and I
> promised to send something out so here goes. Currently, the last
> paragraph in section 2.5 [2] says:
> 
> "If the SOAP node is a SOAP intermediary, the SOAP message pattern and
> results of processing (e.g. no fault generated) MAY require that the
> SOAP message be sent further along the SOAP message path. Such relayed
> SOAP messages MUST contain all SOAP header blocks and the SOAP body
> blocks from the original SOAP message, in the original order, except
> that SOAP header blocks targeted at the SOAP intermediary MUST be
> removed (such SOAP blocks are removed regardless of whether they were
> processed or ignored). Additional SOAP header blocks MAY be inserted at
> any point in the SOAP message, and such inserted SOAP header blocks MAY
> be indistinguishable from one or more just removed (effectively leaving
> them in place, but emphasizing the need to reinterpret at each SOAP node
> along the SOAP message path.)"
> 
> The suggested resolution to issue 146 is to add a paragraph like this:
> 
> "A SOAP node that is acting in the role of the ultimate destination is
> responsible for processing all parts of the message intended for the
> anonymous actor including the body according to the rules described in
> this section."
> 
> Note, the use of "anonymous actor" in order to follow the convention in
> section 2. Personally, I would prefer "default actor", though. The rules
> refer to the two points listed in section 2.5 [2].
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x146
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011002/#procsoapmsgs
>

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 10:37:08 UTC