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

Re: Gateways

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 11:26:19 +0200
Message-ID: <3DAD30BB.3030002@crf.canon.fr>
To: Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>
CC: www-ws-arch@w3.org, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>

I think Mark was using "mismatches" in a different context.

How about adding an extra sentence instead?

<proposed tweak="jjm">
The outbound message may be different from the inbound message. 
Moreover, due to possible mismatches between the inbound and 
outbound interfaces, the message may have some or all of its 
meaning lost.
</proposed>

Jean-Jacques.

Dave Hollander wrote:
> Is it reasonable to change this text a little to include what
> may be an intended outcome--message modification?
> 
> <orginal>
> Due to possible 
> mismatches between the inbound and outbound interfaces, a message 
> may have some or all of its meaning lost 
> </orginal>
> 
> <proposed>
> Due to possible 
> mismatches between the inbound and outbound interfaces, a message 
> <change>may be modified and</change> may have some or all of 
> its meaning or lost during the conversion process. 
> </proposed>
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:58 AM
> To: Mark Baker
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Gateways
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Baker wrote:
> 
>>>I think yours doesn't carry as clearly the notion that a gateway 
>>>terminates a message. The following sentence was certainly 
>>>enlightening to me: "Unlike a proxy, a[n HTTP] gateway receives 
>>>requests as if it were the origin server for the requested resource".
>>
>>Ok.  Do you want to propose an edit that would make that clearer?
> 
> 
> How about?
> 
> <revised>
> Gateway: a node that terminates a message on an inbound interface 
> with the intent of presenting it through an outbound interface as 
> a new message. Unlike a proxy, a gateway receives messages as if 
> it were the final receiver for the message. Due to possible 
> mismatches between the inbound and outbound interfaces, a message 
> may have some or all of its meaning lost during the conversion 
> process. For example, an HTTP PUT has no equivalent in SMTP.
> Note: a gateway may or may not be a SOAP node; however a gateway 
> is never a SOAP intermediary, since gateways terminate messages 
> and SOAP intermediaries relay them instead. Being a gateway is 
> typically a permanent role, whilst being a SOAP intermediary is 
> message specific.
> </revised>
> 
> <original>
> Gateway; a node that terminates a message on an inbound interface 
> with the intent of presenting it through an outbound interface as 
> a new message.  Due to possible mismatches between the inbound 
> and outbound interfaces, a message may have some or all of its 
> meaning lost during the conversion process.  Note; gateways may 
> or may not be SOAP nodes, and gateways that are SOAP nodes are 
> not SOAP intermediaries.
> </original>
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 05:26:00 GMT

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