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

RE: Other message patterns

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:48:12 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F19229D@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'David Clay'" <david.clay@oracle.com>
Cc: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@akamai.com>, "'Randy Waldrop'" <rwaldrop@webmethods.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
David,

Thanks for the thought.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Clay [mailto:david.clay@oracle.com]
> Sent: 09 March 2001 18:42
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: 'Mark Nottingham'; 'Randy Waldrop'; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Other message patterns
> 
> 
> Perhaps you have already considered this...Another way of 
> thinking about this
> would be that one-way is a primitive and message correlation 
> is a primitive.

That would kind do it. Any thoughts on how you would present an abstraction
of correlation - would it look very different form request/response as we
have it.

> With these 2 primitives, you can build synchronous or 
> asynchronous RPC, conversations, et al.

The service abstraction in the current model draft doesn't make a
distinction between synchronous and asynchronous request/response... it's
just request/response - what happens under the covers to deliver that
functionality is part of whatever mechnansisms we design for XML protocol.

> However, this would mean that we would have to make 
> correlation a part of the basic model, which so far we have resisted.

<snip/>

Regards

Stuart
Received on Monday, 12 March 2001 05:48:23 GMT

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