- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:19:11 -0500
- To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Cc: hlowe@omg.org, ohurley@iona.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
I would like to strongly second Henrik's general principle that encoding the destination of a message (I.e. identification of transport endpoints, if that is the right terminology) be done in a binding specific manner, and not in the XP header. Indeed, the web architecture suggests that most modern bindings will/should do this using URI mechanisms, but where they actually put the URI in a message (or whether they need to transmit it at all) should be binding specific. Indeed, one can imagine transports (point-to-point links, for example) in which the target need not be carried in the message at all. At least as important is the fact that there can be processing overhead in "cracking" the XML-format XP header. I think it is undesireable that, when running in an environment such as HTTP that has its own headers and addressing mechanisms, we would require routing code to parse the XP headers. One other point: we are designing wire formats, not APIs. If someone ever kicks off, for example, a workgroup to define a standard Java API for sending XP messages in a transport independent manner, I would strongly suspect that such an API would indeed be biased toward representing endpoints as URI addresses. However, the implementations of that API would rely on the particular XP bindings to determine the means, if any, used to represent the address "on the wire". ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2000 15:27:17 UTC