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

Re: SOAP actor model

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:46:48 -0800
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "'frystyk@microsoft.com'" <frystyk@microsoft.com>, "'Mark Jones'" <jones@research.att.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010320084647.H16145@akamai.com>


Yes. I'm saying that routing doesn't need to be provided by the XMLP
layer, or directly available to an XMLP Intermediary, to make them
useful, as this service is often provided by other layers.

One of the most common attributes of intermediaries at a particular
layer is that they coincide with intermediaries at one or more other
layers.

Cheers,


On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 04:42:35PM -0000, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@akamai.com]
> > Sent: 20 March 2001 16:32
> > To: Williams, Stuart
> > Cc: 'frystyk@microsoft.com'; 'Mark Jones'; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: SOAP actor model
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 01:43:35PM -0000, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> > > 
> > > So in principle I think I could answer your question in the 
> > negative,
> > > however, I find that the lack of guidance on how to select a next
> > > destination along a path leaves me feeling that not enough has been
> > > specified in SOAP (yet) make intermediaries and paths useful.
> > 
> > In the most common case (RPC over HTTP), routing is often controlled
> > outside the message (client configuration for proxies, other
> > mechanisms for surrogates), and often isn't on behalf of the client,
> > but instead on behalf of the access provider and content provider,
> > respectively. The same holds for SMTP relays.
> 
> Maybe I should have been really specific. I was referring to "XMLP
> intermediaries", not intermediaries in the underlying protocol layers. I
> think that without exception, none of the intermediaries that you cite here
> are "XMLP intermediaries".
> 
> > It will be good and necessary to define a routing module which allows
> > the message to say where it goes, but I think intermediaries are
> > functional and useful without it.
> 
> Sure... email message routers, http proxies and caches, ip routers, mac
> layer bridges... have all demostrated their utility and value over the
> years. But none of these are XML protocol intermediaries.
> 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > -- 
> > Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
> > Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)
> 
> BR
> 
> Stuart

-- 
Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2001 11:46:51 GMT

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