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

RE: Issue 140 bogus?

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:43:05 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D05168698@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Cc: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@idoox.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Sure, but the main piece here seems to be that an actor by some means
knows that it can  take on the role of the anonymous actor meaning that
it deals with all parts of the message targeted at the anonymous actor.

The difference in opinion seems to be that I would prefer to be formal
about saying *what* it means to act in the role of the anonymous actor,
rather than *how* that can be accomplished. Whether a message is
forwarded or not seems to be directed at how rather than what.


>Sure, but from a SOAP architecture point of view I would say:  
>you've got 
>one node there, and you've decided to do a distributed 
>implementation of 
>its responsibilities.  That's fine.  From a SOAP architecture point of 
>view, I think you have one opaque node.   The machines you've wired 
>together collectively have the responsibility to meet the 
>of a SOAP ultimate receiver, and not to (in SOAP terms) 
>further forward 
>the message.  Of course, nothing can prevent anyone from 
>creating new SOAP 
>messages which happen to pull data out of the original, 
>distribute data 
>extracted from the message etc.
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 12:45:03 UTC

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