RE: Issue 140 bogus?

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen writes:


>>  I don't think we have anything
>> to say about an actor including 
>> the default actor relaying a 
>> message.

Well, we already say in relatively informal prose: 

"A SOAP node can establish itself as the ultimate SOAP receiver by acting 
in the (additional) role of the anonymous SOAP actor."

I think we need to say formally what that means.  What is it actually that 
such an ultimate receiver does or doesn't do, that is different from what 
other nodes do?  I think we've said "it's the ultimate receiver"  and I 
think that means, it's the last node to process the message, it doesn't 
relay it.

>> A typical example of this is front-end 
>> gateways (some time called inverse proxies) 
>> that forward messages to internal machines 
>> that do the processing. 

Sure, but from a SOAP architecture point of view I would say:  you've got 
one node there, and you've decided to do a distributed implementation of 
its responsibilities.  That's fine.  From a SOAP architecture point of 
view, I think you have one opaque node.   The machines you've wired 
together collectively have the responsibility to meet the specifications 
of a SOAP ultimate receiver, and not to (in SOAP terms) further forward 
the message.  Of course, nothing can prevent anyone from creating new SOAP 
messages which happen to pull data out of the original, distribute data 
extracted from the message etc.

Thank you.

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

Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 10:34:24 UTC