W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Gateways

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:24:05 -0400
To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20021008132404.R28061@www.markbaker.ca>

On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 10:02:24AM -0700, Ugo Corda wrote:
> >So an HTTP-to-SMTP gateway would be responsible for matching up HTTP
> >methods and SMTP methods as close as it could, presumably allowing
> >inbound HTTP POSTs to go out as SMTP DATA requests (with lots of header
> >futzing).
> 
> Yes, and taking that at the SOAP level, a SOAP node could receive SOAP
> messages traveling over HTTP and forward them to another SOAP node over
> SMTP. Is that still a gateway?

If it terminates the message, yes, I'd say so.

> Whatever it is called, it should be a SOAP
> intermediary, right?

Ideally, yes.  But I agree with Henrik when he says that it isn't as
defined the SOAP 1.2 spec.

> Switching the underlying protocol has always been one
> of the SOAP scenarios and, if I remember well, the SOAP nodes where that
> occurs are SOAP intermediaries.

SOAP intermediaries can switch between protocols, but not all SOAP
nodes that are "protocol switchers" are SOAP intermediaries.  Is that
clear? 8-)

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2002 13:23:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:09 GMT