- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 11:36:53 -0700
- To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Just to make sure I understand, you are advocating something like: 1. Intermediary receives SOAP message 2. Intermediary begins to parse stream 3. Intermediary gets to end of soap:Header. Everything is well-formed up to this point and intermediary has processed all headers targetted at it. 4. Intermediary stops doing XML parsing and just streams the rest of the message ( the soap:Body and descendants, plus the closing </soap:Envelope> to the next node. Is that roughly whay you're looking for? Gudge > -----Original Message----- > From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org > [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana > Sent: 07 May 2003 07:49 > To: xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: final decision on well-formedness checking > > > What was the final verdict from the discussion on whether a > SOAP impl needs to do well-formedness checking? > > I would prefer if one could respond with a non well-formed > response for bad requests such as those rather than to force > every implementation to walk thru the whole message before > doing anything. > Streaming is dammed in that case. > > It seems to me that non well-formed requests are VERY > unlikely (especially on TCP style streaming/reliable > transports) except in the case of major SOAP stack bugs. > Forcing well-formedness checking would cut out a major perf > improvement opportunity to cover a case that's way off the > 80-20 or 90-10 or even 95-5 split. > > Thanks, > > Sanjiva. > > >
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 14:38:19 UTC