RE: Comments on issue 101

It still feels like there's a hole then.  If we say each body
block is independent then it seems like we need to say how to
process them.  We do for headers.  If we just leave it as is
and say "just use the processing model" then that to me would
very loudly imply boxcarring in 2+ body block case.  So, having
us say we not going to say anything about boxcarring, but at
the same time imply (to me anyway) that boxcarring is exactly
what is supposed to happen in the 2+ body block case seems a
bit inconsistent.
-Dug


Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com on 10/31/2001 03:29:20 PM

To:   Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   henrikn@microsoft.com, hugo@w3.org, jacek@systinet.com,
      xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject:  RE: Comments on issue 101




Dug Davis writes:

>> The spec specifically says we're not going to
>> deal with things like boxcarring so what
>> does multiple independent
>> body blocks mean then, if not taken a single
>> unit ?

I think it means the same thing as multiple header blocks, all with
mustUnderstand="1", all addressed to the anonymous actor.   That is:
follow the rules in chapter 2.  Just because you understand and process
multiple entries, whether in Header or Body, does not mean your are
boxcarring (it might, we can't prohibit it, but we aren't working through
the many issues you would need to handle to make boxcarring work.)  In
general, we say:

Note also that nothing in the spec says anything about the order of
processing of such anonymous header blocks vs. body blocks.  They're
symmetric.  In general, order is indeterminate unless the message uses
special features: [1]

"It is possible that the processing of particular SOAP block would control
or determine the order of processing for other SOAP blocks. For example,
one could create a SOAP header block to force processing of other SOAP
header blocks in lexical order. In the absence of such a SOAP block, the
order of processing is at the discretion of the SOAP node."

I really think we don't want to invent special rules for all of this
involving the body.  It's syntactic sugar for a common case, and it is
suggestive of being the main point of the message.

Also:  I disagree with those who say that the body can't be manipulated by
intermediaries.  If that were true, how could we do encryption at
intermediaries?

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011002/#procsoapmsgs

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

Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2001 15:39:45 UTC