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

RE: Issue 140 bogus?

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:13:31 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D03442222@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@idoox.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

I would disagree with this restriction. I don't think we have anything
to say about an actor including the default actor relaying a message. A
party is always capable of outsourcing a piece of its namespace to
another party and we should not prevent that. 

A typical example of this is front-end gateways (some time called
inverse proxies) that forward messages to internal machines that do the
processing. From the outside the front-end is the default actor but it
actually somebody else doing the processing.

What we might want to say is that an actor MUST know in some way or the
other that it is the default actor.



>>> Incidentally I was unable to find text intented to
>>> state that "anonymous actor cannot further relay a message".
>Unfortunately, you're right.  It was my intention to include 
>that in the 
>chapter 2 rewrite I did in Rennes, but I see that it came out too 
>informal.  I think we should open an issue, leading to a change in the 
>specification that would make clear that nodes acting as the anonymous 
>actor MUST NOT relay messages, but MAY generate responses or other 
>dependent messages.  Otherwise, we are giving no rigorous 
>sense in which the anonymous actor is the endpoint.
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 14:20:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:16 UTC