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

RE: [AMG] intermediaries

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:24:10 -0800
To: "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D0297CA6B@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>


I think what you are describing in this scenario is typically called a
gateway or in some cases a reverse proxy (a term that I don't really
like). You are right that it is an intermediary but it really is an
intermediary at a higher level than a SOAP/XMLP intermediary.
Intermediaries can live at all levels and in the scenario you describe,
it is part of the "application".

In a previous version of [1] which you can find at [2]. Node IV is an
example of an application layer intermediary.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xp-reqs-05.html#fig1
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/02/01-xmlprotocol-model2.gif

>But note that S did the "real" generation of the reply.
>Of course S has some knowledge, and we can argue that it will 
>perform another query rather than just transporting the 
>received one, but still, the intermediary SCD is after S (and 
>so is W). So it really say "reply to this" to what we call an 
>intermediary rather than "go and get a reply to this" (which 
>is the current semantic of an intermediary). This, of course 
>leads to a more hop-by-hop model.
Received on Monday, 19 March 2001 14:24:45 UTC

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