W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2002

RE: Final Proposal for Issue 41

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:45:33 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192A09@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'amr.f.yassin@philips.com'" <amr.f.yassin@philips.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
A couple of things... firstly the issue is about the there being no
provision *within a SOAP envelope* to identify the target "program, service
or object " so... I think the first sentence need to be extended with
"...within a SOAP Envelope." I think this is true of the ultimate recipient,
but we do provide a means (within the envelope) to identify the role that
SOAP header blocks are targetted to.
I am also uncomfortable that we place the responsibility on application
designers to effectively develop routing extensions for themselves. I think
applications designers will be looking to us for a set of standardised SOAP
extensions - otherwise we head for an interoperability nightmare.So, I
believe that responsibility comes back to this group (probably under some
future charter) to provide a single standardised extension for the
expression of message paths and the identification of ultimate recipients.
<amended proposal>
Add the following text to (Part 1 Section 7: Use of URI in SOAP): 

SOAP 1.2 does not provide any normative means to carry the identity of the
ultimate recipient within a SOAP envelope. SOAP 1.2 does provide a means to
identify the roles that a SOAP header block is targetted to.
SOAP 1.2 does not provide any normative means for the expression of a
message path with a SOAP envelope. However, it does provide means for the
development of SOAP extensions that provides for such expression within SOAP
header blocks. [Work to define a message routing extension for SOAP may be
the subject of future WG activity within the W3C.]
</amended proposal>
For the most part we have not actually addressed the issue, and I think we
should say so rather than cast it as a responsibility on the app.developer.
I've put the lats sentence in [] to make it optional, since it sets some
expectation - which may be inappropriate given that they lay outside our
current charter.
-----Original Message-----
From: amr.f.yassin@philips.com [mailto:amr.f.yassin@philips.com]
Sent: 11 March 2002 16:52
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: Final Proposal for Issue 41

Hi all, 

Below is the final proposal for closing issue 41. 


The target (program, service or object) URI 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] 



Add the following text to (Part 1 Section 7: Use of URI in SOAP): 

SOAP 1.2 does not provide any normative means to identify the target
"program, service or object". 
However, 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



[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x41

Amr Yassin      <amr.f.yassin@philips.com>
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 06:47:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:47 UTC