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

RE: [AMG] Other message patterns

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:31:07 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F19226B@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'dick@8760.com'" <dick@8760.com>
Cc: "'Randy Waldrop'" <rwaldrop@webmethods.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Dick,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Brooks [mailto:dick@8760.com]
> Sent: 05 March 2001 18:13
> To: Williams, Stuart; 'Randy Waldrop'; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [AMG] Other message patterns
> Stuart,
> > ethernet, IP et. al. all provide a singular messaging primitive,
> > the one-way
> > message and yet we have all manner of protocol build upon that basic
> > primitive.
> I don't believe it's realistic to define a one-way message 
> without defining some means to indicate exceptions during 
> the one-way communication. Even  Ethernet, which is
> largely one way, has the ability to throw an exception 
> (collision detected) during a one-way broadcast. I believe 
> the AMG must accommodate "reverse direction" exception reporting
> associated with a one-way message.

That's fine. In the model for one-way you'll find a XMLP_UNITDATA.status
primitive for precisely that purpose. This is largely because the style used
to model the one-way operation is identical to that used to model the IEEE
802 LAN MAC service in the IEEE 802 series of LAN standards.

> Dick Brooks


Stuart Williams
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2001 04:31:44 UTC

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