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 22:02:01 -0400
To: "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020927220201.U24048@www.markbaker.ca>

On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 04:24:59PM -0400, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> The dilemma as I see it is that the pub repository is actually an ultimate destination, but the pub/sup MEP includes both the publish message interaction and the subscribe message interaction.

Pretty much, though I don't think there will be a "pub/sub MEP", because
of the reasons you give (it's really two interactions), plus the fact
that "publish" and "subscribe" are application semantics, and therefore
above the MEP layer.  "publish" should just use the req/resp MEP, while
"subscribe" could use either the req/resp MEP (for blocking
subscriptions), or a req/resp MEP on the subscription, and a one-way on
the notify.

>..and there isn't a definition of this type of "intermediary" in the SOAP spec.

That's what my xmlp-comments post is asking to clarify.  I think it is
really in there by virtue of not being disallowed, it just doesn't need
to be spelled out because it's purpose falls outside the domain of the
SOAP processing model.

MB
-- 
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 22:01:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:06 GMT