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

RE: Issue 146 proposed resolution

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:38:06 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D05801935@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Nilo Mitra (EMX)" <Nilo.Mitra@am1.ericsson.se>, <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Cc: <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

I would say so.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Nilo Mitra (EMX) [mailto:Nilo.Mitra@am1.ericsson.se] 
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 07:21
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
Cc: skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: RE: Issue 146 proposed resolution


Henrik; 
In your scenario below, is it possible for the front end to add
something to the body before forwarding it to the back end? I ask
because I unwittingly did an example for the Primer with just your
architecture (shown below) but needed to add a body block in the "front
end". (I can elaborate separately if you wish)
Nilo 
Nilo Mitra                      
Ericsson Internet Applications Inc. 
phone: +1 516-677-1073 
mobile: +1 516-476-7427 
email: nilo.mitra@ericsson.com 
-----Original Message----- 
From:   Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [SMTP:henrikn@microsoft.com] 
Sent:   Wednesday, November 14, 2001 5:39 PM 
To:     Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com 
Cc:     skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org 
Subject:        RE: Issue 146 proposed resolution 


>The text you suggest doesn't seem to prevent a node playing 
>the role of 
>the anonymous actor from acting as an intermediary and relaying the 
>message. 
Well, it is an attempt of indicating *what* it means to act in the role 
of the default/anonymous actor rather than *how* to do it. The reason 
for this is that *who* is the ultimate recipient depends on from what 
side one is looking. 
In the scenario that I brought up some time ago about a front-end server

and a back-end server like this: 
        sender  -->  front-end  --> back-end 
the *sender* believes that front-end it the ultimate destination. While 
this is true, the front-end has off-loaded the actual processing to the 
back-end. All three parties are SOAP nodes, it is just that the way the 
front-end has decided to process the message is to forward the message 
to the back-end server. 
In short, this model implicitly supports both intermediaries as well as 
gateways. I am concerned that if we don't allow this then we will have 
to define a SOAP node as an abstract entity that can contain multiple 
nested SOAP nodes which in my mind is much more complicated. 
Henrik 
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 11:39:17 GMT

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