W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2000

Re: [DS2] Fire-and-forget to multiple receivers

From: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:54:54 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
At 09:27 AM 2000-12-21, john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com wrote:

>DS2  A sender wishes to send unacknowledged messages to a set of receivers
>(e.g. send a stock price update every 15 minutes)
>Author: Dick Brooks on behalf of ebXML
>Note: DS2 Originates from splitting the ebXML use case 1.1 into 2 scenarios
>      (DS1 and DS2). Note that DS2 may be decomposed into
>       Multiple instances of DS1 under the control of some ?higher
>       level? process such as multicast or publish/subscribe.

I picture a DS1 to a "server", then DS2 from that "server" to multiple 
subscribers.  Is it correct call such a server an "XP Intermediary"?

As with my comment on DS1, should we distinguish between DS2 without 
Intermediaries(DS2.1), and DS2 with intermediaries (DS2.2)?  I think so.

If we do distinguish between DS2's, then a usage scenario where, for 
example, XP uses Java Messaging Service (JMS) for its transport, could be 
DS2.1.  That is, the JMS server is not an XP Intermediary.

Or would there be a case where the JMS server could also be an XP 
Intermediary (DS2.2)(as opposed to sending a DS1 where the Ultimate XP 
Receiver is an application (XP gateway?  XP proxy?) running on the server, 
that then acts as a JMS client to then perform DS2.1).  If the JMS server 
is also an XP Intermediary (DS2.2), then it would look at the XP message 
and do something before passing it along to JMS subscribers (the set of 
Ultimate XP Receivers).

If the JMS server does not look at the XP message, then it would be a DS2.1 
(assuming one of the JMS subscribers is not an XP Intermediary).

Received on Thursday, 21 December 2000 13:56:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:11 UTC