Re: Who Faulted (was RE: Proposed rewrite of Part 1, section 2 (l ong) )

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> I agree with Jacek that it seems problematic to distinguish between node
> and actor. I think we have to be careful with our use of the term "role"
> and "actor" as I don't think the analogy with the silver screen holds.
> There, the term "role" implies that there is an actor and that the actor
> has a name that is different from the role. That is, we can have "Sean
> Connery" (the actor) acting as "James Bond" (the role) and normally we
> distinguish between referring to Sean or to James as they are different
> entities. Furthermore, it is only under certain conditions that "Sean
> Connery" and "James Bond" are the same, "James Bond" could also refer to
> "Roger Moore" and so on.

IMHO, this is no different from our processing model. A SOAP role is a URI
that ultimately designates a piece of software (or a piece of data) residing
on a computer; any Web resource may actually play a role. In certain
situations, a "../JamesBond" SOAP role will be played by a node called
"", and in other situations by a node called

> In the current SOAP model, we only have one identifier which is the
> value of the actor attribute. Any form of "equality" between references
> has to be determined out of band. For example, our "next" URI defines
> out of band (in prose in our spec) that it is equal to any identifier
> identifying the receiving SOAP Node when it is present in a SOAP
> message. The equality could also be stated declaratively as a set of
> statements asserting that two identifiers are the same under certain
> conditions, or it could be determined implicitly by some resolver
> mechanism.
> Note that we say nothing about *how* one resolves the actor name as
> resolution is a matter of trust. That is, I can have names that are
> resolved to identify a specific SOAP node using some out of band
> mechanism or names that are resolved using DNS. The "next" URI is an
> example of the former.
> For better or for worse, I think the current description in SOAP 1.2,
> part 1 section 2 is adequate and consistent with the general Web
> architecture of URI references. I therefore suggest that we leave it as
> is.
> Henrik
> > I think that even though more complicated, modeling it as an
> >extension would be much cleaner because of avoiding all that
> >node stuff in the core.  Additionally, adding faultNode would
> >IMHO _not_ be consistent with faultActor because actor is a
> >known and used and well defined term, whereas node was so far
> >only an abstract term.  For these reasons I would initially
> >oppose to the WG discussing this addition. But then, the
> >discussion has already started as
> >this dialog. 8-)

Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 04:40:15 UTC