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

RE: Intermediaries

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:58:49 -0800
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9039587B4@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

Let's not forget we already had a long thread about gateways last year. See the thread "Gateways" at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/thread.html.

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 1:52 PM
> To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Intermediaries
> 
> 
> 
> Where do gateways fit into this?  Beyond the scope of intermediaries?
> If so, what is the distinction that puts them outside the scope.
> 
> By "gateway" I have in mind, for example, a company that 
> provides, as a
> service, the collecting of purchase requests from client companies and
> the sending of the required purchase request to vendors, 
> handling  along
> the way security, tracking, and so on.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Champion, Mike
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 3:10 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Intermediaries
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> > [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com] 
> > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 3:37 PM
> > To: Ugo Corda; Francis McCabe
> > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Intermediaries
> > 
> > 
> > Yes -- is it possible that the issues that you are trying to
> > raise with respect to intermediaries are beyond a reasonable 
> > scope for the present effort, given the practical limitations 
> > of time and personnel?
> 
> I for one am becoming less and less convinced that the idea of
> "application defined equivalence" to distinguish intermediaries from
> "regular" web services is productive.  
> 
> I think it would be desireable to identify the various senses in which
> "intermediaries" is used in the web services context. As far as I can
> tell, the only thing that distinguishes any kind of 
> intermediary is that
> it is both a message receiver and a message sender.  We have at least
> the
> following:
> 
> "Underlying protocol" [I fear to say "transport"] intermediaries that
> help move bits around efficiently, e.g. TCP/IP routers, HTTP 
> proxies and
> caches.
> 
> "message intermediaries" that perform some MOM-level service such as
> gateways between HTTP and MQ, routers that send a message to the
> geographically appropriate destination,  or perhaps those 
> that handle a
> protocol such as WS-ReliableMessaging.  These make sure that SOAP
> messages (as opposed to bits) are delivered to the correct ultimate
> receiver node.
> 
> "service intermediaries" provide higher-level services such as policy
> enforcement.  WS-Security aware Firewalls are an obvious example, as
> would be the SOAP Primer example of an intermediary that 
> quietly changes
> business class reservation requests to coach class if an
> application-level policy requires it.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 16:58:50 GMT

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