- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 22:29:48 -0500
- To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>, "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
David Orchard writes: > I don't think it's legit for a soap stack to "fluff up" an > envelope unless specifically licensed. I agree, at least if we make reasonable assumptions about how MEPs are used, etc. Basically, I see the SOAP model as: MEPs tell you who can send SOAP messages and who they are delivered to. It's assumed that such deliveries are achieved in the manner that the framework gives you for implementing a binding: I.e. the requirement is to faithfully reconstruct an infoset supplied by the sender. (See [1], paragraph 6) I suppose you could imagine a very strange MEP that would call for messages to appear that the sender never sent, but I view that as at best unusual and almost surely bad practice. It is reasonable, I think, for a multicast MEP to call for the same message or a variant (e.g. with modified destination addresses) to be delivered to more than receiver, etc. Indeed, someday it would be nice to flesh out the MEP story for multicast (can you fold responses?), for intermediaries etc. Nonetheless, I agree with David's answer. For a binding, SOAP Message In => SOAP Message Out; No SOAP Message In => No SOAP Message Out. Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#bindfw -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 03:30:02 UTC