Re: SOAP actor model

Mark Jones wrote:

> I spoke to Henrik today, and he thinks it is better to overload the
> block tag.  Some blocks would be purely declarative -- this is a vcard,
> for example.  Other (actionable) blocks would have more
> processing-oriented tags that the processor would bind to a handler.
> These tags would either surround a declarative block, or possibly
> point to a declarative block, particularly if the block needed to be
> processed in multiple ways.

Mark, overloading means different things to different people. What do you mean by
overloading here? (I'm not aware of overloading as a standard XML concept.)

> I'd be willing to go this route instead of "overloading the actor",
> although I actually don't view it as overloading.  My point was that
> the actor would be a designation of the "the kind of processor
> that should handle this block" by either having a binding/handler
> in the processor's environment or not.  Currently, the actor is somewhat
> underutilized -- with only special URI's signifying the next processor
> and the last processor.

I agree.

Jean-Jacques.