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

Re: Correlation [was: Transaction IDs]

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:58:20 -0800
To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
Cc: dorchard@jamcracker.com, frystyk@microsoft.com, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org, xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010323105819.D17175@akamai.com>
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 07:46:29PM -0500, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote: 
> The possible objection to correlation IDs, which I believe has been
> previously raised, is that
> 
> 1) you need to figure out how transport bindings fit in.  When I
> send a request/response over http, I generally relay on HTTP itself
> to correlate the response with the request.  In that case, putting
> ID's in the envelope itself is possible excess baggage.

The proposed definition [1] identified 'implicit' (transport-binding)
and 'explicit' (Module) correlation; if implicit correlation is used,
it supplies correlation, meaning that no extra baggage is required.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Mar/0115.html

Cheers,

-- 
Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)
Received on Friday, 23 March 2001 13:59:05 GMT

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