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

Re: Abstract Model and Intermediaries

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:31:09 -0800
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (E-mail)" <frystyk@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau (E-mail)" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "John Ibbotson (E-mail)" <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>, "Krishna Sankar (E-mail)" <ksankar@cisco.com>, "Lynne Thompson (E-mail)" <Lynne.Thompson@unisys.com>, "Mark Baker (E-mail)" <mark.baker@canada.sun.com>, "Martin Gudgin (E-mail)" <marting@develop.com>, "'Nick Smilonich'" <nick.smilonich@unisys.com>, "Oisin Hurley (E-mail)" <ohurley@iona.com>, "Scott Isaacson (E-mail)" <SISAACSON@novell.com>, "Yves Lafon (E-mail)" <ylafon@w3.org>, "'Paul Denning'" <pauld@mitre.org>, "'Ray Denenberg'" <rden@loc.gov>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20010205093106.B24612@akamai.com>

I haven't been following the abstract model as closely as I should
have, but that having been said, they look good to me, especially #3. 

The only thing that comes to mind is that it would be nice to
illustrate that the different levels of intermediary (transport,
message, application) may coincide. I realize this may be graphically
difficult to pull off.


On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 09:55:38AM -0000, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> Folks,
> Over the weekend whilst walk the dog, my mind was crunching on the XP
> terminology and intermediaries, particularly in regard of trying to
> reconcile the different points-of-view on intermediaries expressed in [1,2].
> Take a look at the attached 3 slides (GIFs and .ppt). The first is the
> Overview slide from the posting I put out to the AMG on Friday [4]. This
> places XP Processing Intermediaries firmly above the XP layer, as
> application entities - it also shows transport intermediaries down in the
> underlying protocols.
> The second slide introduces the notion of Application Intermediaries and XP
> Messaging Intermediaries, which seems to line up with Scott and Hugo's
> postings [3,4]. The former are application entities and lie outside of the
> core of XP. The latter are principally XP message routers (analogus to IP
> routers in an IP environment). The XP Messaging service would then have to
> consider path model through such Messaging intermediaries, but there may
> also be implicit paths...eg. consider an initiating device that supports XP
> over SMTP addressing an XP message to http://myxp.xp.com/myStockQuote. It
> may be configured (proxy style) to send the message via SMTP to a XP/SMTP to
> XP/HTTP messaging intermediary.
> The second slide sticks with the terminology of the first.
> The third slide plays with the terminology - again in a bid to try and
> reconcile that with our existing glossary.
> I think that getting this overview picture (and the terms it encapsulate)
> right is the key to getting our model right. 
> So... I'd like:
> 1) your comments on whether the shape of slides 2/3 is preferable to slide
> 1.
> 2) assuming slide 2/3 is preferable which collection of offered terminology
> seems more comfortable... or offer a new set that better fits your own
> comfort levels.
> I'd like that we spend some time on Tuesday talking around theses 3 slides.
> I'll send a full agenda later today.
> Best regards
> Stuart
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Feb/0005.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Feb/0007.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Feb/0006.html
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Feb/0011.html
> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2001Feb/0063.html

Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 12:31:40 UTC

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