Re: ROR proposal issue #3 (aka SC3)

After we discussed this issue on the call today, it became clear that I 
may have been
mis-reading 'response message' for 'response envelope'.

DaveO and I were discussing our respective positions on this and I believe 
that we are
in agreement that the reference to "other information structures" includes 
things like the
HTTP status code and other goop.

I would like to recommend that the wording be changed to:

Start of response available in 
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage'.

or, optionally:

Start of response message available in 
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage'.

Either form captures the case where the OutboundMessage property either 
does, or does not contain a value for the
response envelope.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295

xml-dist-app-request@w3.org wrote on 03/31/2006 06:16:18 PM:

> 
> I took an action to explode the substantive comments on the ROR 
> proposal individually out to the ML. This is one of three.
> 
> Thx, Mike 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Issue: Does/can OutboundMessage abstraction handle the 202/204 
> case? Can an OutboundMessage have no envelope?
> 
> Target: Table 7 - "Receiving" row
> 
> Commenters: Chris Ferris (CF), Dave Orchard (DO)
> 
> Comments:
> In the Transition column it reads: 
> '***Either a) Start of response envelope available in 
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage or b)indication 
> from the application that no such envelope is to be send in the 
> response.'
> 
> The definition of OutboundMessage is: 'An abstract structure that 
> represents the current outbound message in the message exchange. 
> This abstracts both SOAP Envelope and any other information 
> structures that are transferred along with the envelope'. 
> 
> It seems to me that in the case of an HTTP 202 Accepted response, 
> that something needs to tell the binding that the message was 
> accepted. I would have thought that that would constitute "other 
> information structures", but maybe not? Does this mean that there's 
> a missing property? Something that indicates to the binding layer 
> the disposition of the received message? 
> 
> Furthermore, in the Action column it reads: 
> '***Initiate transmission of response message. If an envelope is 
> provided in abstracted in 
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage then include 
> that in the response message.'
> 
> The part that says: "if an envelope is provided in abstracted..." 
> seems to imply that the envelope is optional in the OutboundMessage 
> (in the context of the responding SOAP node), which seems to suggest 
> as I did above, that the disposition is actually a part of the 
> abstraction of OutboundMessage. I think that it will be important 
> that we make this clear and consistent. I personally think that in 
> all cases, there is an OutboundMessage. It may, or may not as the 
> case may be, contain a SOAP envelope. 
> 
> Proposed edits/actions:
> From: 
> '***Either a) Start of response envelope available in 
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage or b) 
> indication from the application that no such envelope is to be 
> send in the response.'
> 
> To: 
> (Option 1, CF)
> 'Start of response envelope available in 
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage'.'
> 
> (Option 2, DO) 
> I would think that setting a "null" for the response 
> envelope in the OutboundMessage does this. I have purposefully 
> underspecified this. Regarding Action - prefer Noah's formulation. 
> I don't think that a null envelope is a response envelope. It's 
> a response that is in the OutboundMessage but it's not an envelope. 
> (DO)
> 
> Refs:. 
> (1) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jan/0062.html 
> (2) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jan/0092.html
>