- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jjmoreau@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:33:23 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
- CC: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, dug@us.ibm.com, "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
[Switching over to dist-app.] I meant that a SOAP node that merely adds a block (to the message) _with no further processing (of the message)_ qualifies as a SOAP intermediary. That node will have processed _zero_ block (from the message), which I think is what is intended by the definition. Jean-Jacques. Mark Nottingham wrote: > How so? Noah's message didn't say anything about how the modification > was triggered, which is central to the argument that I was making. > > I think this is orthogonal. > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:48:28AM +0200, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote: > > Mark, I think this is another argument in favour of the "processes zero or > > more blocks". > > > > Noah, I agree we do not explicitely call this out in the definition, and I > > think we should. Is there any text you would like to suggest? > > > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote: > > > > > I'm not sure it's all that broken to begin with, but we should keep in > > > mind that intermediaries can modify the message. For example, you could > > > have an encrypting intermediary. I wonder whether any of the formulations > > > give an adequate signal of this possibility? > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 > > > Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 > > > One Rogers Street > > > Cambridge, MA 02142 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist > Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA) Mark Nottingham wrote: > If it doesn't process a SOAP block, I don't think it's a SOAP > Intermediary; it might be an HTTP intermediary, for example. > > An argument could be made that going through the motions of looking > for a SOAP block to process might qualify it as such, but I'm > inclined to say that doesn't make it; it isn't imposing any of SOAP > mechanisms upon the message. > > Cheers, > > On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 09:05:54AM +0200, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote: > > Hum... what about building instead on the definition for a SOAP sender[1] : 'It transmits the > > SOAP message further along the SOAP message path.' ? > > > > I also have an issue with the previous sentence in that definition, > > in that some intermediaries will not process any block. > > > > So what about this revised definition : > > > > 'A SOAP intermediary is both a SOAP receiver and a SOAP > > sender, target-able from within a SOAP message. It processes > > zero or more blocks from the SOAP message targeted at the > > intermediary, and transmits the message further along the SOAP > > message path.' > > > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > [1] A SOAP sender is a SOAP node that transmits a SOAP message. > > > > > > Doug Davis wrote: > > > > > Definitely better - leaves it more open. > > > What do the editors think? > > > -Dug > > > > > > Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>@w3.org on 10/03/2001 12:25:04 PM > > > > > > Sent by: w3c-xml-protocol-wg-request@w3.org > > > > > > To: Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > > cc: w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org > > > Subject: Re: Extra agenda item (short) for Oct 3 XMLP telcon -- issue 70 > > > > > > I think this might be centered around the phrase 'it acts to > > > forward'? > > > > > > How about the less direct 'Messages are forwarded from it...'? > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 07:07:27AM -0400, Doug Davis wrote: > > > > I don't mind if we say that the final definition we come up with > > > > will close issue 70 - however, I have some concern about > > > > the current text - as I noted in a note to the WG a while ago > > > > (I've attached the issue below). > > > > -Dug > > > > > > > > > > > > David Fallside/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS@w3.org on 10/03/2001 01:15:05 AM > > > > > > > > Sent by: w3c-xml-protocol-wg-request@w3.org > > > > > > > > > > > > To: w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org > > > > cc: > > > > Subject: Extra agenda item (short) for Oct 3 XMLP telcon -- issue 70 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is proposed to close issue 70 (provide a defn of processing > > > > intermediaries) [1] with the resolution text provided at [2] (the > > > glossary > > > > includes a defn of a SOAP intermediary). Is this not acceptable to anyone > > > > in the WG? > > > > > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x70 > > > > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2001Oct/0000.html > > > > > > > > > > > > ............................................ > > > > David C. Fallside, IBM > > > > Ext Ph: 530.477.7169 > > > > Int Ph: 544.9665 > > > > fallside@us.ibm.com > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > [issue] > > > > Section 1.4.2: SOAP intermediary (et al) > > > > A SOAP intermediary is both a SOAP receiver and a SOAP > > > > sender, target-able from within a SOAP message. It processes > > > > a defined set of blocks in a SOAP message along a SOAP > > > > message path. It acts in order to forward the SOAP message > > > > towards the ultimate SOAP receiver. > > > > This last sentence seems to imply that intermediaries do > > > > forwarding when in fact they might not do that at all. Do these > > > > terms imply a certain implementation choice? We typically think > > > > of the processing model where messages are PUSHed to a SOAP node > > > > and then that node will then PUSH it on to the next node. I see > > > > a mode of operation that might not fit all of the definitions as > > > > stated above, for example: > > > > Each SOAP Node is invoked with the SOAP message thru a simple > > > > procedure call. In this mode an intermediary doesn't forward > > > > on the message, it just returns (notice it might return "void" > > > > or it might return a SOAPEnvelope object depending on whether > > > > it is supposed to modify the message) it would then be up to > > > > the controller that is doing the call's to then determine which > > > > is the next SOAP node to "call". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist > > > Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA) > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist > Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)
Received on Friday, 12 October 2001 03:33:53 UTC