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

Re: Gateways

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 09:47:41 +0200
Message-ID: <3DA3DF1D.70103@crf.canon.fr>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org


You may remember the figure at [1]. Although old and outdated, it 
shows some of the thinking that was later incorporated into the 
Transport Binding Framework.

The interesting case if Host III. It is a SOAP node that is a 
SOAP intermediary. It is also a "SOAP gateway", although that 
term does not formally exist. The two rectangles for Host III in 
the "Underlying Protocol Layer" mean that, AFAIR, the inbound and 
outbound protocols are different.

However, Host III may not be a "gateway" in the sense you mean. 
The SOAP message is interpreted at the application layer before 
being forwarded. I feel this is different for your typical 
gateway: the gateway would not, in general, have to understand 
the contents of the message --- just as a layer 2 router would 
not have to understand the contents of the packet being forwarded.

This note is also as a response to [2] and [3].

Does this make sense?


[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/14-am/xmlp-am.html#Fig2.2
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/0119.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/0121.html

Mark Baker 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).
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2002 03:47:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:00 UTC