Draft Simplified SOAP One-way MEP

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Draft Simplified SOAP One-way MEP

David Orchard

I attach an HTML and xmlspec version of the SOAP One-way MEP done in simplified state transition-less style.  I like this much better than the "complex" style, done at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Mar/0044.html

 

Cheers,

Dave


entitiesedcopy.dtd (966 bytes) Download Attachment
one-way-mep-simple.html (17K) Download Attachment
one-way-mep-simple.xml (14K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Draft Simplified SOAP One-way MEP

noah_mendelsohn

I finally got to take a look at these.  I'm afraid they're a bit too
simple for my taste.  In particular, I can't quite convince myself that
they normatively require anyone to send anything, though certainly a
sympathetic reader would get the idea.  At the very least, I would give
the instructions in prose, e.g.:

-------------
The scope of a one-way MEP is limited to the exchange of a message between
one sending and one receiving SOAP node.  The sending node MUST send the
SOAP Message provided in
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage to the node identified
as http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/ImmediateDestination.  The sender is
not responsible for reliably detecting whether transmission succeeds or
fails, but the sender SHOULD fault in a binding specific manner if it
descovers that transmission is in fact unsuccessful.

The receiving node MUST determine whether a given message has been
received successfully, and if so, MUST process the received message in
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/InboundMessage according to the (2.6
SOAP processing model).  Determination of success by the receiver MAY be
conservative, I.e. the receiver may in exceptional circumstances treat as
erroneous or lost  a message which is received intact (typical reasons for
making such decisions might include shortage of buffer space, network
interface overruns, etc.).  Receivers MAY fault in a binding-specific
manner if some particular message is declared in error (note, however,
that in many cases where receipt is unsuccessful, information identifying
the message or its sender may be unreliable, in which case there may be
little if any value in reflecting a message-specific fault.)
-------------

I'm not sure the above is quite right, but it makes clear I think that
even when there are no state machines, it's important to cover the details
and the edge cases.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








"David Orchard" <[hidden email]>
Sent by: [hidden email]
03/30/06 08:04 PM
 
        To:     <[hidden email]>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Draft Simplified SOAP One-way MEP


I attach an HTML and xmlspec version of the SOAP One-way MEP done in
simplified state transition-less style.  I like this much better than the
"complex" style, done at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Mar/0044.html
 
Cheers,
Dave
[attachment "entitiesedcopy.dtd" deleted by Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM]
[attachment "one-way-mep-simple.html" deleted by Noah
Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM]
[attachment "one-way-mep-simple.xml" deleted by Noah
Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Draft Simplified SOAP One-way MEP

David Orchard
In reply to this post by David Orchard

Noah,

I'm fine with having material similar to that in the "simplified" mep.
It roughly says "send a message" and "receive a message", which is about
the extent that I think the formalism of the MEP needs to get into.  

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:58 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Draft Simplified SOAP One-way MEP
>
> I finally got to take a look at these.  I'm afraid they're a bit too
> simple for my taste.  In particular, I can't quite convince myself
that
> they normatively require anyone to send anything, though certainly a
> sympathetic reader would get the idea.  At the very least, I would
give
> the instructions in prose, e.g.:
>
> -------------
> The scope of a one-way MEP is limited to the exchange of a message
between
> one sending and one receiving SOAP node.  The sending node MUST send
the
> SOAP Message provided in
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage to the node
identified
> as http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/ImmediateDestination.  The
sender is
> not responsible for reliably detecting whether transmission succeeds
or
> fails, but the sender SHOULD fault in a binding specific manner if it
> descovers that transmission is in fact unsuccessful.
>
> The receiving node MUST determine whether a given message has been
> received successfully, and if so, MUST process the received message in
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/InboundMessage according to the
(2.6
> SOAP processing model).  Determination of success by the receiver MAY
be
> conservative, I.e. the receiver may in exceptional circumstances treat
as
> erroneous or lost  a message which is received intact (typical reasons
for
> making such decisions might include shortage of buffer space, network
> interface overruns, etc.).  Receivers MAY fault in a binding-specific
> manner if some particular message is declared in error (note, however,
> that in many cases where receipt is unsuccessful, information
identifying
> the message or its sender may be unreliable, in which case there may
be
> little if any value in reflecting a message-specific fault.)
> -------------
>
> I'm not sure the above is quite right, but it makes clear I think that
> even when there are no state machines, it's important to cover the
details

> and the edge cases.
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "David Orchard" <[hidden email]>
> Sent by: [hidden email]
> 03/30/06 08:04 PM
>
>         To:     <[hidden email]>
>         cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        Draft Simplified SOAP One-way MEP
>
>
> I attach an HTML and xmlspec version of the SOAP One-way MEP done in
> simplified state transition-less style.  I like this much better than
the
> "complex" style, done at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Mar/0044.html
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
> [attachment "entitiesedcopy.dtd" deleted by Noah
Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM]
> [attachment "one-way-mep-simple.html" deleted by Noah
> Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM]
> [attachment "one-way-mep-simple.xml" deleted by Noah
> Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM]