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

RE: Thoughts about path and intermediaries

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:38:48 +0100 (MET)
To: "Marc J. Hadley" <marc@hadleynet.org>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0102141821070.20055-100000@tarantula.inria.fr>
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Marc J. Hadley wrote:

> This would mean that neither the XML Protocol layer nor the application
> layer is aware of an explicit path which would further imply that there
> isn't an explicit path at all (or if there is nobody looks at it ;-). This

If nobody looks at the world, does the world exist? :)
We already have this problem in HTTP, sith surrogate proxies, it is indeed
an intermediary but you won't see it in the explicit path from the
application layer, while it is the case for a regular proxy. My point here
is that we may have the same kind of stealth intermediaries

> takes us back to a single hop protocol with all multi-hop functionality
> pushed up to the application layer. Is this what you intended ?

Well I think more of a single hop protocol with multiple targets. If an
intermediary has to get some data to process the request, then it falls
into a target and will do this processing at the application layer, so
it becomes more than a simple stealth intermediary which is operating at
the XMLP layer.

-- 
Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2001 12:38:56 GMT

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