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

Re: INT: Re: Intermediary Discussion

From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 09:48:07 -0500
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Cc: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, XML Protocol Comments <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFD57A68AE.BA680552-ON852569ED.0052079D@lotus.com>
Mark Nottingham writes;

>> Are you suggesting that there should be a divorce between the nature
>> of the transport binding (in HTTP's case, request/response) and the
>> XP message exchange pattern?

No, there should be synergy, BUT I am suggesting that the XP level 
abstractions (exchange patterns, intermediaries, etc.) should form a 
coherent model, and will the level at which most applications are framed. 
There is synergy, for example, between SMTP and the underlying binding to 
TCP, but most email-enabled applications are coded to SMTP or some 
abstraction of it.   If it flows well on TCP, so much the better.

I expect most apps (or the libraries they call) will implement XP at the 
level of "Create an envelope for request message, add add body, add header 
to mark transacted, add digital signature header, etc."  With proper 
bindings and implementations of those bindings, this may cause all kinds 
of nicely optimized http or even https magic to happen...the same 
connection will be used for request and response, etc.  Just as in the 
email case, the application is working at the higher level.  Therefore, 
the higher level must stand on its own as a coherent model for use by 
applications.  Does that make sense?

Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2001 10:00:07 UTC

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