- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jjmoreau@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:46:16 +0200
- To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>, "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, Noah Mendelsohn <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
[Switching to dist-app.] Then I think the term you are looking for is a SOAP node, not a SOAP processor. As for your second point, you seem to suggest the following path: A -> B -> A -> C where A, B and C are SOAP intermediaries. We are arguing about B's role. Personally, I think B is both a receiver and a sender, ie. it does forward the (possibly modified) message back to A. Jean-Jacques. Doug Davis wrote: > They might, or might not, be on the same host - I don't > think it matters. The spec doesn't say (rightly so) that > nodes or processors must, or must not, be on the same host. > > The text you proposed doesn't address my original concern > (about implying that it MUST be the intermediary that does > the forwarding), how about: > A SOAP intermediary is a SOAP receiver but is not the > ultimate destination of the SOAP message. It is target- > able from within a SOAP message, and MUST adhere to the > SOAP processing model. When completed with its processing, > the SOAP message will be forwarded further along the SOAP > message path to the next SOAP node. > > -Dug > > Jean-Jacques Moreau <jjmoreau@acm.org> on 10/10/2001 07:56:52 AM > > To: Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>, w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org, Noah > Mendelsohn <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com> > Subject: Re: Extra agenda item (short) for Oct 3 XMLP telcon -- issue 70 > > Are the "controller" and "SOAP nodes" in your example below colocated on > the same host? If so, I > think your "SOAP nodes" are really "SOAP processors" colocated on the same > "SOAP node", and not > "SOAP nodes" themselves. > > This being said, I am beginning to think an intermediary may not do any > forwarding, for example if > it fails to find the next node or if there is an instruction (block) that > tells it not to forward > the message (if some condition holds, e.g.); but I guess this is the > exceptional case, not the > usual one? > > Trying to take previous input from you, Mark and Noah into accountw, what > about: > > A SOAP intermediary is both a SOAP receiver and a SOAP sender, > target-able from within a > SOAP message. It may process any block from the SOAP message (and not > only blocks > targeted at itself) and may add new blocks to the message. It may > transmit the message > further along the SOAP message path.' > > Here is a variation for the last sentence: > > 'It usually transmits the message further along the SOAP message path, > although if may > not do so, for example if it fails to find the next node or one of the > message's block > instructs it not to do so.' > > Jean-Jacques. > > Doug Davis wrote: > > > I think you're right - I think "SOAP sender" should probably be > > removed. For why a SOAP intermediary does not necessarily > > do forwarding...seemy note at the bottom of this mail for my > > reasoning behind it. > > -Dug > > [...] > > > > > [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".
Received on Friday, 12 October 2001 03:46:29 UTC