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

RE: SOAP UML diagram

From: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:57:41 -0700
To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PEEBJKKCFNCENDPJDEMIIEBLDFAA.martin.chapman@oracle.com>


Bottom line is that a message may end up in the hands of more than one
ultimate  receiver in a multicast transport.
I think the discussion is really about whether one thinks of multicast as a
single path with multiple recipients (the * on ultimate receiver), or
multiple paths, one for each recipient ( a 1 on ultimate receiver). Both are
equally valid models, but which one do we (and the xmlp guys) prefer?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:52 AM
> To: Jean-Jacques Moreau
> Cc: Martin Chapman; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SOAP UML diagram
> Hi Jean-Jacques.
> * Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
> [2003-06-12 17:40+0200]
> > Hugo, yes this is what the spec now says, the spec used to say AN
> > ultimate receiver. This may be an unfortunate editorial change.
> > Certainly, the intent had always been to allow multicast transports.
> Hmmm... so you are saying that a SOAP message should be able to have
> more than one ultimate receiver.
> My view is that conceptually, there is only one ultimate receiver role
> but several SOAP nodes may end up with the message in their hands and
> act in this abstract role.
> Basically, I don't see any problem with what the spec says as long as
> this abstract/role vs. concrete/node separation is clearly made.
> Or maybe I didn't get your point.
> --
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 12:57:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:07 UTC