- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 09:34:27 -0400
- To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- CC: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1 c'est bon Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote: > LOL ! > > ... but I like it! (I just now hope noone will disagree!) > > Maybe a final minor tweak, mainly for consistency: > s/SOAP receiving node/SOAP receiver/ > > Jean-Jacques. > > Christopher Ferris wrote: > > >>Jean-Jacques, >> >>The SOAP processing model specifies[1] how a SOAP receiving node processes[2] a >> ^^^^^^^^^ >>SOAP message. It applies to a single message only, in isolation from >>any other SOAP message. The SOAP processing model itself does not[3] >>maintain any state or perform any correlation or coordination between >>messages[4], even, for example, when used in combination with a feature >>which involves sending multiple SOAP messages in sequence, each subsequent >>message depending on the response to the previous message. It is the >>responsibility of each such features to define such combined[5] >>processing. >> >>How 'bout the one minor tweak. Again, this constitutes my main concern >>in that SOAP process rules have nothing to say about what a SOAP sending >>node does with the message. >> >> > [2] I like "processing" better than "receiving" here. I think it's up to >> > the MEP to specify what happens when a message is received. IMO, the >> > processing model is concerned by the processing of messages only, not by >> > their reception. >> >>I think I disagree. SOAP has nothing to say about processing a SOAP >>message as it is being sent, or am I missing something fundamental? >> >>Cheers? >> >>Chris >>Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote: >> >>>Close. How about the following minor tweaks: >>> >>>The SOAP processing model specifies[1] how a SOAP node processes[2] a >>>SOAP message. It applies to a single message only, in isolation from any >>>other SOAP message. The SOAP processing model itself does not[3] >>>maintain any state or perform any correlation or coordination between >>>messages[4], even, for example, when used in combination with a feature >>>which involves sending multiple SOAP messages in sequence, each >>>subsequent message depending on the response to the previous message. It >>>is the responsibility of each such features to define such combined[5] >>>processing. >>> >>>Jean-Jacques. >>> >>>[1] I don't remember whether there was any introductory context. In any >>>case, I thought an extra introductory sentence was necessary. >>> >> >> > [2] I like "processing" better than "receiving" here. I think it's up to >> > the MEP to specify what happens when a message is received. IMO, the >> > processing model is concerned by the processing of messages only, not by >> > their reception. >> >>>[3] I think the active is more appropriate than the passive here. >>> >>>[4] "between messages" may not be necessary. >>> >>>[5] I am unuse of the adjective to use here. I think we need to say >>>point out to features as being the place where you define such >>>functionality; but maybe you will think this should go into the MEP >>>section section? >>> >>> >>>>So, with that, here is a slight tweak: >>>> >>>> The SOAP processing model applies to a SOAP node >>>> receiving a single message only, in isolation >>>> from any other SOAP message. There is no state, >>>> correlation or coordination at the SOAP processing >>>> model level, even, for example if using a feature >>>> which involves sending multiple messages in >>>> sequence, each subsequent message depending on >>>> the response to the previous message. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > >
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 09:37:39 UTC