RE: concatenating web services

Don Box wrote on 02/10/2003 10:35:15 PM:

> 
> > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 6:44 PM
> > To: Don Box
> > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > 
> > 
> > Don Box wrote on 02/10/2003 12:11:35 PM:
> > 
> > <snip/>
> > >
> > > For what it's worth, the team I work on (we build the SOAP stack for
> our
> > > company's operating system) has done a fair amount of navel
> > > contemplation on this one. Our primary conclusion was that because
> SOAP
> > > has no notion of message identity, intermediaries have a great deal
> of
> > > freedom. That stated, here are some guidelines to think about:
> > >
> > > 1) Intermediaries SHOULD NOT contradict the intention of the
> original
> > > sender and the ultimate receiver. When these two conflict, the
> ultimate
> > > receiver's intention wins.
> > 
> > Intention for what? This guideline seems to me to have a very
> RPC-style
> > bias. In a
> > pub/sub environment, neither the intent of the message publisher nor
> that
> > of
> > the message's subscriber(s) is necessarily known to any other than
> itself.
> > In fact,
> > the publisher may not be aware of the existance of the subscriber(s).
> How
> > is an
> > intermediary to "know", or even guess at the intent of the ultimate
> > recipient?
> > Can the intent of the original sender be "known" to be anything more
> than
> > that
> > it intends the message to be delivered to the ultimate recipient?
> 
> Sure. For example, based on the namespace affiliation of the root
> element of the SOAP message, I am indicating that I intend all nodes
> along the message path to adhere to a specific version of SOAP.

Okay, but that's slightly different than what I might interpret some to 
mean
by "intent". Same for the header examples. Thanks for clearing that up for 
me.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624