- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:57:24 -0400
- To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Monday, Oct 7, 2002, at 13:23 US/Eastern, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > The first question is of course what a gateway is but if we strictly > look at it from a SOAP node perspective, then I don't think the SOAP > spec has much to say about gateways. In general, I think the answer to > your question is no, gateways are not SOAP intermediaries. One could > imagine SOAP intermediaries being underlying protocol gateways but that > is, I think a different question. > I agree. A SOAP intermediary is both a SOAP receiver and a SOAP sender and is targetable from within a SOAP message *but* not everthing that is both a SOAP receiver and a SOAP sender and is targetable from within a SOAP message is a SOAP intermediary. I think a gateway falls into the latter camp. > Btw, I agree with your proposal: > >> P.S. section 2.1 redefines "SOAP intermediary" in the second >> sentence of the first paragraph, differently than in section >> 1.4.3. I suggest it be removed from 2.1. > +1. Marc. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] >> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 11:37 >> To: xmlp-comments@w3.org >> Subject: Are gateways SOAP intermediaries? >> >> >> >> The current definition of a SOAP intermediary says; >> >> "A SOAP intermediary is both a SOAP receiver and a SOAP sender and is >> targetable from within a SOAP message. It processes the SOAP header >> blocks targeted at it and acts to forward a SOAP message towards an >> ultimate SOAP receiver." >> >> "SOAP message path" is defined as; >> >> "The set of SOAP nodes through which a single SOAP message passes. >> This includes the initial SOAP sender, zero or more SOAP >> intermediaries, and an ultimate SOAP receiver. >> >> "Ultimate SOAP receiver" includes this in its definition; >> >> "An ultimate SOAP receiver cannot also be a SOAP intermediary for the >> same SOAP message" >> >> The second definition suggests that the ultimate SOAP receiver >> cannot itself be a SOAP intermediary. The third point >> explicitly says this, though with the qualification "for the >> same SOAP message" (which is unclear). But the first, in the >> first sentence, would seem to include gateways in its >> definition, as they meet all three criteria; SOAP receiver, >> SOAP sender, targettable. >> >> At this late stage, I'm only going to ask that the >> specification be clear about how gateways fit, or don't, as >> the case may be. >> >> Thanks. >> >> P.S. section 2.1 redefines "SOAP intermediary" in the second >> sentence of the first paragraph, differently than in section >> 1.4.3. I suggest it be removed from 2.1. >> >> (speaking only for myself) >> >> MB >> -- >> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) >> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org >> http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com >> >> > <smime.p7s> -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 13:58:11 UTC