- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:48:41 -0500
- To: "Appleton, Pete M" <PMAppleton@bemis.com>
- Cc: amr.f.yassin@philips.com, "'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek@systinet.com>, "'Williams, Stuart'" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
I think we should go a bit slowly here, and build on our experience. The one binding we've seen widely deployed does not employ a destination address encoded in the envelope. This has nothing to do with intermediaries, SOAP or otherwise. The natural way to send an XML document using HTTP POST is not to put the destination URI in the envelope; you pass the URI along with the envelope. HTTP is not unusual in that regard. Furthermore, it's quite reasonable to assume that in many realistic scenarios, the envelope will be prepared by one level of software, but routed by separate pieces of middleware. For example, it's common that high volume implementations have load sharing and failover sites spread around the world. Requiring the envelope to be cracked open so that the message can be re-addressed is a nuissance, and doesn't solve any problems. We've already seen proposals like RP which provide very flexible means of routing messages using information carried in the envelope. These suggest that we should not standardize any means of addressing until we understand routing, and especially dynamic routing. SOAP 1.2 as proposed allows the binding specification to determine the means used to deliver a request or response. Not that, in the case of a response, it is typical that the responding application (that builds the application) does not know the URI or IP address of the requestor. In practice, connections (often abstracted as sockets) remain open during request processing, and are used for response routing. Surely we don't want to require a destination address in the envelope for the response. The point is that there are all kinds of ways to get this wrong. SOAP 1.2 provides flexibility in the right places, while remaining simple and extensible. I think it's fine for this round. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 18:05:52 UTC