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

Re: Intermediaries - various cases

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:44:03 -0400
To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Cc: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org'" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20020927144403.O24048@www.markbaker.ca>

On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 09:32:51AM -0700, Ugo Corda wrote:
> >It's a new message when it progresses any further, since the transfer
> contract with the sender has been fulfilled. 
> But is it possible to objectively identify this transfer contract?

Sure, it's between the initial sender and the specified ultimate

> In the
> case of the pub/sub node, the sender's contract might be fulfilled by its
> interaction with the pub/sub node (the pub/sub node is the ultimate
> receiver).


> Or I could see the ultimate delivery of the message to the
> subscribers as part of the sender's contract (the pub/sub node is just an
> intermediary).

"ultimate" is a deceptive word in the gateway case.  I believe it refers
to the the ultimate recipient as specified by the initial sender.  This
is consistent with SOAP 1.2's use of the word, AFAICT.  It also relates
to issue #2;


and to an even more profound issue about whether a SOAP envelope is
necessarily a message.  But I won't raise that one. 8-)

> How is this going to be determined? Is it just something in
> the eye of the beholder?
> >Hmm, perhaps the SOAP 1.2 spec could be clearer.
> I completely agree with that.

I just submitted the following to xmlp-comments;


Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 14:43:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:59 UTC