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

Re: Has the semantics for Modules changed?

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:16:01 +0100
Message-ID: <3AB74A00.2E8D0542@crf.canon.fr>
To: frystyk@microsoft.com
CC: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@akamai.com>, Williams Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> >This brings another question to mind - will there ever be a
> >case where a block is targeted at a node in the request, the
> >node processes the block during the request, and the response
> >also needs processing by the node, without targeting?
> >
> >I can imagine that your challenge/credentials module would be
> >targeted in both directions. Would there ever be a case where
> >the response would be implicitly targeted, based on its
> >correlation with the request?
> I think so. The reason is that there is only one "from" (i.e. a party
> responsible for a message) and that party is located at the initial
> sender. The initial sender may outsource processing to other nodes in
> the message path but that doesn't change the party responsible for the
> message in the first place.
> In other words, each block doesn't have an individual "from" associated
> with it and when a receiver receives a message it always looks like a
> single message with a single "from". Any party in the path can of course
> send additional messages, which allows these parties to be associated
> with the "from" for the messages they generate.

Allowing multiple parties (handlers, intermediaries) to add blocks to a
request is like allowing multiple conversations to be carried out on the
same channel. In such a multi-speaker context, doesn't it matter to be able
to identify individual speakers (this is probably implied by Fig. 2.1@AM)?
If so, shouldn't we explicitely tag individual blocks with a "from"

Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2001 07:18:38 UTC

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