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

Re: infoset and bindings

From: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:42:27 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200107191442.KAA06149@glad.research.att.com>
To: jones@research.att.com, mnot@mnot.net
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
    > Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 17:06:18 -0700
    > From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
    > To: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
    > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
    > Subject: Re: infoset and bindings

    > On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 03:29:04PM -0400, Mark Jones wrote:
    > > I think of sending the message from the sender's perspective in the
    > > following way:
    > > 
    > >  1) The sender knows the basic content to be delivered and any
    > >     ancillary sender-specified services.  (Delivery paths may
    > >     also invisibly provide other "services" en route that are
    > >     transparent to the sender.)
    > > 
    > >  2) The sender also determines an overall messaging pattern
    > >     (fire-and-forget, request-response, etc.) from its
    > >     perspective.
    > > 
    > >  3) The sender must also construct some delivery plan that is
    > >     consistent with 1) and 2).  The sender may be hardwired or use
    > >     meta-data (obtained via some unspecified mechanism) to determine
    > >     this delivery plan.  The sender may completely determine the
    > >     routing path, protocols, etc., for all hops or its plan may
    > >     include the delegation of some of these decisions to routing
    > >     intermediaries, but nonetheless it has a delivery plan.  (In
    > >     particular, the next hop of the plan must be concretely determined
    > >     at the sender and each intermediary.)
    > > 
    > > An infoset representation of the message at any given point along
    > > the message path includes all of the above information that is still
    > > required for subsequent delivery and processing.

    > This approach, as you say, requires that all information necessary to
    > characterize the message and its path be resident in the infoset. I
    > don't think this is true for all use cases of SOAP, and would view
    > this as an unneccessary contstraint of SOAP.

If you read carefully, it says "or its plan may include the delegation
of some of these decisions to routing intermediaries, but nonetheless
it has a delivery plan".  It is more accurate to say that "the
message's delivery plan is resident in the infoset", i.e. its strategy
for getting the message to the destination.  That strategy may include
a reliance on others to further flesh out the explicit delivery path,
bindings to use at each hop, etc.  By delivery plan, I just mean to
include all of the relevant information that is known by the message
regarding its transport/binding future.  It seems rather axiomatic
that the message infoset should include that or it would be lost.


    > Cheers,

    > -- 
    > Mark Nottingham
    > http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2001 11:18:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:14 UTC