Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd)

BTW, I do not think "forwarding" is a direct consequence of "processing". The
intermediary may decide not to process the message, and still do forwarding.

As for the intermediary being a SOAP sender, see my earlier message[1].

Jean-Jacques.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0185.html


Christopher Ferris wrote:

> I don't think that we have dropped it. True, it is implicitly
> rather than explicitly stated. Maybe the following would address
> your concerns?
>
> "A SOAP intermediary is both a SOAP receiver and a SOAP sender
> that is neither the intial SOAP sender nor the ultimate receiver of
> a SOAP message. A SOAP intermediary is target-able from with a SOAP
> message by means of the SOAP actor attribute value. A SOAP
> intermediary MUST process a SOAP message according to the SOAP
> processing model. A consequence of processing is that the SOAP
> message is sent further along the SOAP message path to the next SOAP node."
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>
> > I don't think we can drop the notion that an intermediary is both a
> > sender and a receiver:
> >
> > "A SOAP intermediary is both a SOAP sender and a SOAP receiver,
> > target-able from with a SOAP message..."
> >
> > The important thing about an intermediary is that it acts on behalf of
> > another SOAP node. I think that is stated slightly implicit in terms of
> > initial sender and ultimate recipient but can live with it.
> >
> >
> >>"A SOAP intermediary is a SOAP receiver, target-able from with
> >>a SOAP message, that is neither the intial SOAP sender nor the
> >>ultimate receiver of that message. It processes a SOAP message
> >>according to the SOAP processing model. A consequence of
> >>processing is that the SOAP message is sent further along the
> >>SOAP message path to the next SOAP node."
> >>
> >
> > Henrik
> >

Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 03:28:54 UTC