Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay

Jean-Jacques,

I was indeed suggesting that we should use something like
"relayIfNotProcessed" or rather "relayInsteadOfRemoving" but 
*only if we really need that*.

I doubt we really need that since I see this semantics as very much
affected by the semantics of the header (presumedly described in the
header's specification - a module) and currently a module *can* include
the relaying semantics, together with conditions like "ifNotProcessed"
or "always".

So generally, I'm against doing anything in this area, or maybe we could
just describe how a module can implement the scenario Noah is concerned
about.

Best regards,
                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/


On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 16:12, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> 
> I would tend to agree with you (and, to be honest, this is the 
> part of the proposal I am hesitant about). However:
> 
> 1) we should try to solve the indicated scenario without going 
> back to WD;
> 
> 2) the notion of role is already blurred with that of routing 
> ("SOAP roles MAY be named with a URI useable to route SOAP 
> messages to an appropriate SOAP node."), so the situation may not 
> be worse after that change (not a perfect reason, though).
> 
> Are you suggesting we should use "relayIfNotProcessed" instead? 
> Is that a go-back-to-WD solution? (Yves?)
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> > I really think that the questions of relay and of role targeting are
> > orthogonal. 
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 11:29:50 UTC