W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > December 2003

RE: Intermediaries

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:41:29 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E026F000D@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

I believe that the sense I heard in the telcon was that a gateway was
NOT an intermediary, but please feel free to change or use the text in
any way you like.  I just submitted it as a straw man, based on my
recollection of what seemed to be the consensus of the conversation.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Ugo Corda
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 11:22 AM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Intermediaries



Roger,

I would not use the term choreography. According to my current
understanding of WS-Chor, a choreography is a way of describing the
patterns of message exchanges among a set of participant nodes, and of
describing the change of state of those nodes. A choreography does not
map to an node/agent, so I would leave it out of the intermediary
discussions.

Orchestration is a more appropriate term for this discussion. Still I
would not say that in general "if the purpose or function of the message
is substantially changed one should consider the situation to be an
orchestration". For instance, I don't think many people would think of a
simple gateway as an orchestration node.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 7:44 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Intermediaries
> 
> 
> 
> Here is some text that expresses my understanding of the sense of some

> of the telcon conversation about intermediaries.  Please use, modify 
> or ignor as seems appropriate.
> 
> It is useful to draw a distinction between situations where
> messages are
> passed through intermediaries and choreographies.  The essential issue
> is that an intermediary passes along a message that is essentially, or
> functionally, the same as it received.  If, on the other hand, the
> purpose or function of the message is substantially changed one should
> consider the situation to be a choreography.  This cannot be defined,
> however, in an entirely rigorous or black and white way -- 
> one person's
> intermediary may legitimately be considered a choreography by others.
> Note that since an intermediary can change the message, for example by
> encrypting it or by adding ancillary information, it remains 
> a judgment
> call whether those changes are significant and functional.  
> In addition,
> whether a service that passes messages is considered an intermediary
> depends on participants in the entire chain of the message.  For
> example, if sender A sends messages through I, which modifies the
> messages, to receivers B and C, B might consider the modified 
> message to
> be functionally unchanged whereas C might consider it to be different
> and take different action because of the modification.  In the first
> case I would be considered an intermediary, in the second it 
> would not. 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 13:41:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:24 GMT