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

(unknown charset) RE: DR604

From: (unknown charset) Octav Chipara <ochipara@cse.unl.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:33:49 -0600
To: (unknown charset) xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.05.10011152329350.5458774-100000@cse.unl.edu>


> Hi Oisin,
> 
> I think the easy fix is to add the word 'content' to the end of DR604. Which
> becomes:
> 
> "...This requirement implies it must be possible apply many transport or
> application protocol bindings to the XP message without information loss
> from the message (content). "
> 
> In terms of what intermediaries can touch and what transformations they can
> perform on the semantics of an interaction... its not clear to me that we
> have established any stated requirements - eg. do say request/response
> interactions fully nest through a bunch of intermediaries or is it a
> hop-by-hop chain of request/response pairs; what can an intermediary that
> signs a message touch... but thats for a different section...
> 
> Regards
> 
> Stuart
> 

There is another issues that Stuard has touched on ... do we need
different intermediary schemas for routing varying from one communication
patter to another. We should not allow such a thing ... However we must
clearly separate the transport intermediaries from XP intermediaries (I
hope we are talking about XP intermediaries). 

- Octav

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Oisín Hurley [mailto:ohurley@iona.com]
> > Sent: 14 November 2000 17:15
> > To: Williams, Stuart; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: DR604
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Stuart
> > 
> > > The semantics of an interaction are also bound up in the 
> > events that arise
> > > during the course of an interaction, not just the content 
> > of the messages
> > > exchanged.
> > 
> > Indeed, this is true. However I think it may be fair to say 
> > that there is
> > an 'expected interaction semantics' which is present prior to 
> > the actual
> > message interchange and that this is what is meant by this 
> > requirement.
> > 
> > Coupled with the requirement for extension, it may  be possible for
> > intermediaries to change then course of the envelope and thus depart
> > from the expected interaction semantics. The provision of routing
> > instruction makes this a viable means to tailor the exchange to your
> > particular requirement or to resolve damage or queue issues.
> > 
> > > Delivery sequence may have semantics, single delivery may be
> > > important, silent loss may be an issue, loss of a 'fault'
> > > response may be an
> > > issue. I'd like to fully understand what is scoped as 
> > "information loss".
> > 
> > Hmm. We all know that information cannot be destroyed, merely 
> > transformed :)
> > I think what this means is that the information in the basic 
> > message model
> > (i.e. body of the message, all mandatory headers and 
> > attachments) must reach
> > the intended destination intact. The rule is that 
> > intermediaries in the
> > chain
> > of delivery must not remove or mutate these data items.
> > 
> >  cheers
> >    --oh
> > 
> > --
> > ohurley at iona dot com
> > +353 1 637 2639
> > 
> 
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2000 00:33:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT