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

Re: Thoughts about path and intermediaries

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:39:27 -0000
Message-ID: <00d301c092c7$a5002050$0200a8c0@greyarea>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@akamai.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Mark Nottingham converged some electrons...
> I agree with Henrik (although strangely, I haven't received his
> message yet).
> Targeting without in-message routing is perfectly plausable; routing
> can be supplied by the transport (through the URI, client
> configuration of a proxy, etc.), by the application service layer
> above the XMLP layer, an in-message routing convention that can be
> specified later, as a Module, or combinations of them for multi-hop
> intermediaries.

I'm obviously being especially dense right now but to me this seems like the
worst of both worlds. A sender creates a message with some parts targeted at
intermediary processors en-route and has no way of specifying that route...
I don't get it...

I can see how a sender could target parts of the message at different
software modules at the ultimate destination of the message because the
sender gets to say 'send this message to that destination over there'.

I just can't see how the sender gets to target parts of the message at
software modules at an intermediary if it has no control over which
intermediary nodes the message goes via.

Please, please, please help me see what I am missing...

Yours desperately,

Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 13:40:30 UTC

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