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

Re: Intermediary Discussion

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:06:19 -0800
To: James Snell <jmsnell@intesolv.com>
Cc: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20010207120618.C29028@akamai.com>
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:46:48AM -0800, James Snell wrote:
> 
> > 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 )
> 
> I feel consideration also needs to be given to the definition of the Message
> Path itself.  In other words:  Will the message path for an XP message be
> determined solely by the contents of the message (intermediaries identified
> in the block) or will the Message Path have to be predetermined by the
> application service.  If the former, then the message must contain a defined
> message routing path that includes absolute addressing of all processors
> (intermediaries and final destination).  If the latter, then the message
> must contain ID's that the application service can use to identify the
> blocks intended for particular processors.  

So, you're saying that using in-message routing is an alternative
form of targetting? 

Also, isn't it plausable that an intermediary could be located by a
serivce URI (say, thorugh client configuration, etc.), while the
following intermediary could be located by in-message routing? I
guess I'm wondering why it's necessary to tie block targetting to
message routing.



-- 
Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 15:07:00 GMT

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