- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 20:37:40 +0100 (CET)
- To: amr.f.yassin@philips.com
- cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Amr,
I'm afraid the text you quote does not address the issue. I
think the proposal should rather be to say:
"While the target URI is not normatively in the envelope, if an
application uses intermediaries, it must configure somehow
(either statically or using dynamic routing protocol) the message
path. Part of this configuration is the successive target URIs.
Therefore it is the responsibility of the application designer to
provide the appropriate target URIs at the appropriate points of
the message path, or of a routing extension, not of the SOAP
core."
What'dya think? 8-)
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 amr.f.yassin@philips.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was assigned to write down a proposal to resolve issue 41.
>
> <Issue_41>
> The target (program, service or object) URI (TBD) is not mentioned in any
> normative way in the SOAP envelope. While this does not conflict with the
> requirements, I believe it's an important (and possibly debatable)
> decision. This decision precludes sending an RPC invocation through an
> intermediary that uses different protocol bindings for sending and
> receiving XP messages. [1]
> </Issue_41>
>
> Proposal:
>
> I propose to close this issue since it was addressed in Part 1 section 2.1
> and 2.2
>
> <Sec_2.1>
> A SOAP node can be the initial SOAP sender, the ultimate SOAP receiver, or
> a SOAP intermediary, in which case it is both a SOAP sender and a SOAP
> receiver.
> ...
> A SOAP node MUST be identified by a URI
> </Sec_2.1>
>
>
> <Sec_2.2>
> In processing a SOAP message, a SOAP node is said to act in one or more
> SOAP roles, each of which is identified by a URI known as the SOAP role
> name.
> </Sec_2.2>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Amr Yassin <amr.f.yassin@philips.com>
> Research Member
>
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 14:37:45 UTC