RE: Has the semantics for Modules changed?

Hi Jean Jacques,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: 20 March 2001 12:16
> To: frystyk@microsoft.com
> Cc: 'Mark Nottingham'; Williams Stuart; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Has the semantics for Modules changed?
> 
> 
> 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"
> attribute?

I think that there may be value in being able to 'tag' blocks with something
that identifies their originator, however, I don't think that "Fig 2.1@AM"
implies that.

> Jean-Jacques.


Stuart