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

RE: [AMG] Figure 2.1 suggested revision.

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:25:41 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F1922B5@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (E-mail)" <frystyk@microsoft.com>, "John Ibbotson (E-mail)" <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>, "Krishna Sankar (E-mail)" <ksankar@cisco.com>, "Lynne Thompson (E-mail)" <Lynne.Thompson@unisys.com>, "Marc Hadley (E-mail)" <marc.hadley@uk.sun.com>, "Mark A. Jones (E-mail)" <jones@research.att.com>, "Martin Gudgin (E-mail)" <marting@develop.com>, "Nick Smilonich (E-mail)" <nick.smilonich@unisys.com>, "Oisin Hurley (E-mail)" <ohurley@iona.com>, "Scott Isaacson (E-mail)" <SISAACSON@novell.com>, "Yves Lafon (E-mail)" <ylafon@w3.org>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Jean-Jacques,

Where I was coming from is that gradually the notion of a 'client'/'user' of
the XML protocol seems to be ebbing out of our glossary. It is a concept
that I think is important not least beacuse to some it extent it delineates
the boundary between the provider of XMLP and the user of XMLP. In doing
this it also sets the boundary on what needs to be defined in the specs. we
develop.

The recent rewording around handler has removed references to "XML protocol
application" and the two proto definitions for "XML protocol processor" now
place responsibility on the processor to invoke the handlers. In the process
we loose the notion of a thing that 'uses' the XMLP layer and/or some
(logical) container for a collection of handlers at a node. The suggested
revisions to the diagram were an attempt to reflect the recent glossary
changes.

Personnally I would prefer not to loose the concept of a user/client of the
XMLP layer and I was reasonably comfortable with it as a container for a
bunch of handlers. If "XMLP Application" is not a good terms for that
concept, and there seems some reluctance to accept the term, then lets think
of a new name for it. We've had:

	Layer Client
	XMLP Service user
	XMLP Application

My personal favorite remains Layer Client... but it seemed to cause
confusion for some.

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: 13 March 2001 10:47
> To: Williams Stuart
> Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (E-mail); John Ibbotson (E-mail); Krishna
> Sankar (E-mail); Lynne Thompson (E-mail); Marc Hadley 
> (E-mail); Mark A.
> Jones (E-mail); Martin Gudgin (E-mail); Nick Smilonich (E-mail); Oisin
> Hurley (E-mail); Scott Isaacson (E-mail); Yves Lafon (E-mail);
> 'xml-dist-app@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: [AMG] Figure 2.1 suggested revision.
> 
> 
> "Williams, Stuart" wrote:
> 
> > Basically, I've been trying to match the picture with our 
> eveloving glossary
> > definitions. What I've done is to 'pull' the handlers back 
> inside the XML
> > protocol layer and dispatch them directly from the XML 
> protocol processors.
> 
> I tend to see handlers as belonging to the application space, 
> as Henrik, and hence it feels funny to
> see them down below the XPLayer. Aren't you actually looking 
> for a new service provided by that layer,
> ie dispatching to handlers, and if so, shouldn't you 
> introduce instead a new primitive (or adapt an
> existing one)?
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2001 04:26:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:59 GMT