W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2001

Re: comments on 30/3/2001 AM draft

From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 09:44:15 -0400
Message-ID: <3AC9D3AF.2C0087A3@east.sun.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Marc,

If Binding.Operation != XMLP.Operation then a different name
needs to be used so that there will not be confusion as to 
the distinction that you draw.

Same holds for Correlation, we need to make clearer the
distinction between Binding.Correlation and XMLP.Correlation
as they mean different things entirely.

Cheers,

Chris

"Marc J. Hadley" wrote:
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> > 7) Section 5 doesn't have a section defining/declaring the three binding
> > "operations" (OP, MSG and ERR).
> I didn't want to get into discussing binding operations because this could
> be easily confused with XMLP operations which each map to several binding
> operations. Instead I left operation to mean the same thing as at the XMLP
> layer, i.e. "a single instance of a message exchange pattern", or a set of
> OP.xxx, MSG.yyy and possibly ERR.ind primitives. However, now that XMLP_Data
> has been removed from the AM, this distinction may not be so important.
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what would go in such a section over and above what is
> already in 5.1.2.1, 5.1.2.2 and 5.1.2.3 where the primitives are listed ?
> 
> > In addition, the disgram in section 5.1.1
> > only contains reference to OP and MSG (ERR is omitted). That same diagram
> > also refers to OP and MSG as primitives, when in fact they are Binding
> Operations
> > in the lexicon of the AM.
> >
> See my comment above. I agree that ERR should be added, do you think we need
> to use OP.xxx, MSG.yyy and ERR.zzz to highlight their status as primitives ?
> 
> > 9) Something that isn't clear to me is whether the correlation discussed
> in section
> > 5 is the same as correlation discussed in section 3. In fact, I believe
> that
> > there may need to be a separation of concerns w/r/t correlation as it
> applies
> > to individual message exchange and a protocol binding which may support
> the
> > notion of session. A session may span multiple correlated message
> exchanges
> > or "conversations".
> >
> That is how I was thinking of it working. The correlation in section 5 is
> purely low level binding specific correlation (e.g. HTTP providing
> request-response). There is also a need for XMLP layer based correlation as
> discussed in section 3.
> 
> Regards,
> Marc
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2001 09:47:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:00 GMT