- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:31:26 -0500
- To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: dug@us.ibm.com, hugo@w3.org, jacek@systinet.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org, xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
+1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com> Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org 10/31/01 01:41 PM To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com> cc: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus) Subject: RE: Comments on issue 101 Thinking more about this I think I was too quick on the trigger. While SOAP implementations in many cases dispatch the complete contents of the Body element to some "application", the processing model is in fact consistent in that all body blocks have to be understood in order for the SOAP processor to process the message successfully. I don't think it makes sense to say that body faults can cause mustUnderstand faults simply because this is not how the mustUnderstand fault is defined [1]: "An immediate child element information item of the SOAP Header element information item that was either not understood or not obeyed by the processing party contained a SOAP mustUnderstand attribute information item with a value of "true" (see 4.2.3 SOAP mustUnderstand Attribute)" In other words, I don't think there is any inconsistency in saying that we have a set of body blocks and that they are equivalent to header blocks with default actor and mustUnderstand set to true. That the mustUnderstand may be interpreted by different parties in any given implementation is outside the scope of this specification. A question is whether we would want to have a Client.Body fault or some such to indicate in a generic manner that the body was not understood. Hope this is more clear Henrik >Am I right in this understanding? I think this example should >be written in the spec or in the primer because it makes clear >that there is no issue about "understanding" (as in mU) of the >RPC calls because the receiver has to "understand" env:Body >and not m:GetLastTradePrice and thus an unknown method is not >an mU fault as has been suggested a few times. 8-) [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011002/#soapfault
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2001 16:32:05 UTC