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: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 06:29:04 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D058019EE@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>, <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Only as a mandatory extension and only by effectively redeploying *all*
existing SOAP nodes. Without a targeting mechanism, it furthermore
becomes very difficult to not just have passive forwarders. This all has
a *very* high cost and will be fragile as a result.

We had this discussion a long time ago - I would strongly recommend
focusing on solving the outstanding issues of which there are plenty
rather than going back in circles.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

>+1, in fact, +asmanyasIcangetawaywith
>
>I would be heavily in favour of removing actor from Part 1 and 
>defining an extension for whatever 'actorlike' features we 
>decide we need. I would also strongly suggest that we define 
>said extension outside of our current path to REC. Many of the 
>current issues we have to resolve are to do with actor and/or 
>intermediaries. Pushing this out into an extension that is 
>defined post 1.2 seems like an ideal way of keeping ( getting 
>us back? ) on schedule.
>
>I've already done a *lot* of thinking about actor and I'm 
>fairly convinced that it *can* be done as an extension. 
>Hopefully I'll get chance to post some of my thoughts/designs 
>in the next week.
Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 09:30:03 GMT

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