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

Re: INT: Re: Intermediary Discussion

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:52:17 -0800
To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
Cc: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, XML Protocol Comments <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20010212145215.F4636@akamai.com>
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 09:48:07AM -0500, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:
> 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?

I think so. This is much more ambitious than what I see in the
charter, though. I almost want to say that it feels like an API,
rather than protocol, issue.

Some applications may need this invisibility, but many will not. I
dispair of trying to define a taxonomy of all protocol and message
path characteristics that XMLP can use; this is a very serious
undertaking, and I don't see how leaving it out of scope prevents it
being done separately (perhaps in relation to Web Services). 

Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
Received on Monday, 12 February 2001 17:52:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:12 UTC