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

RE: INT: Re: Intermediary Discussion

From: Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:09:00 -0500
To: "XML Protocol Comments" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000401c091e9$72c0cf60$33f39280@saidin>
Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
> 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?

A note from an observer...my question would be whether or not the
relationship between the binding and the "message exchange pattern" is
exposed to the application layer or not?

IOW, would I as a programmer tell XP that I want "synchronous
request-response over SMTP" or "one-way message over HTTP", or is only the
higher level of abstraction exposed?

In the RPC world, there's the protocol sequence specifying basically only
the binding to the underlying transport, but here we have two (or more)
degrees of freedom to allow for more than just RPC.

  Scott Cantor
  cantor.2@osu.edu          Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
  Office of Info Tech                       -- Homer Simpson
  The Ohio State Univ
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2001 11:09:02 UTC

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