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

Re: RE: Issue 146 proposed resolution

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 07:54:12 -0500
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8328593C.CF3EF4C6-ON85256B05.0045C10D@raleigh.ibm.com >
Henrik wrote:

>In this case, the party who the sender thinks is the ultimate
>destination....

I don't disagree with the rest of your note, but this one line
does concern me.  To some people using the "actor" attribute
gives the sender some sort of routing or targetting mechanism.
We know that routing is definitely not what it is there for,
and targetting is only true so far as you can say "the node
that will process this block will act in 'this' role".  So, when
we talk about a sender "thinking" that a particular node is
the ultimate destination it sounds a little too close to targetting
a node by something like an IP address rather than its role.
A sender only has the notion of two things (w.r.t. targetting or
routing), and that is "next" (since he's the one who opens up
the socket) and "everything else" - which technically could wind up
being "next" depending on the roles "next" chooses to take on.  I
get a little concerned when I see text that seems to imply the sender
has any more control or knowledge beyond this.  So, I don't
believe the sender can ever really "think" a certain party(node)
is the ultimate destination - he must always look at "next" as
sort of a black box - "next" could be the end of the road or could
be just the beginning - its a total unknown.

-Dug
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 07:54:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT