Re: [AMG] Figure 2.1 suggested revision.

"Williams, Stuart" wrote:

> 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. [...]

What I am concerned about with the revised figure, is that handlers appear to be
an integral part of XMLP protocol/specification. There is a difference between
handlers being invoked automatically by processors (I am ok with that), and them
still living in "protocol space" rather than "application space". I may not have
been your intention, but this is how I am reading the revised figure.

> 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.

What about XMLP Service ? This would fit nicely with the forthcoming workshop on
Web Services...

Jean-Jacques.