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

RE: [AMG] : PPT of diagram

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:02:01 -0800
Message-ID: <001301c092b1$a39aed00$308f3b9d@redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.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>, "Marc Hadley \(E-mail\)" <marc.hadley@uk.sun.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>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>Using Martins version of the diagram [1,2], the difficulty I'm
>having is not
>so much the processor N thing that Martin introduced, its the
>nature of the
>exchange that takes place between Processor M and Handler T
>(particlarly if
>there are a collection of handlers). I think it has different
>semantics that
>those of the UnitData and Data operations.

An intermedediary *is* special in that it defines both the sending side and
the receiving side - otherwise it can't be an intermediary. Given that we have
a definition of an intermediary that supports both an XML Protocol sender AND
an XML Protocol receiver then I can't see the difference:

    On the sending side between (Processor M, Handler T)and
    (Processor L, Handler S)

and

    On the receiving side between (Processor M, Handler T) and
    (Processor O, Handler V)

I can't think of any example where there would be a difference?

>I think we can resolve all of it by introducing an operation to
explicitly
>support intermediaries. Something like:
>
>
>XMLP Application                  XMLP Application     XMLP Application
>(encap of                         (encap of            (encap of
>Handlers Q&R)                      Handlers @ T)        Handlers U&V)
>
>XMLP_UnitData.    |             |                    |
>request       |             |                    |
>----------------->|             |XMLP_Intermediary.  |
>                  |             |indication          |
>                  |             |------>             |
>                  |             |<-----              |
>                  |             |XMLP_Intermediary.  |XMLP_UnitData.
>XMLP_UnitData.    |             |response            |indication
>confirm           |             |                    |------>
><-----------------|             |                    |
>                  |             |                    |

I am somewhat confused about why we would want to describe this as a
request/response interaction?

Henrik
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 11:02:36 GMT

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