- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:02:01 -0800
- 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 UTC