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

Re: INT: Re: Intermediary Discussion

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:32:57 +0100 (MET)
To: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
cc: XML Protocol Comments <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0102071416280.16428-100000@tarantula.inria.fr>
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Martin Gudgin wrote:

> OK, there has been *some* discussion of this topic [1-2]. The Abstract Model
> Group have also been thinking about intermediaries[4-5]. Mark Nottingham has
> posted a document discussing intermediaries[3].

(I won't reply on the points already answered by Mark and others)

> In terms of addressing intermediaries it's my feeling that we need to
> address ( ahem ) the following cases;
>
>       a) absolute addressing ( must go to machine A )
>       b) by group ( must go to one of machine X, Y or Z )
>       c) by class ( must go to a machine running Windinux )

Should intermediaries be considered as an extension or part of the core
message?
Should the application layer take care of the intermediary
business or will it be handled at the XP layer (with automatic discovery
and such)?
I would redefine a) b) c) with the following:

a) go to the machine M
b) go to the service S
The application may choose between both addressing types, then the XP
layer would "transport" it to either an intermediary, or the ultimate
recipient, which may not be known by the application.

-- 
	~~Yves

"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 08:33:04 GMT

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