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

RE: Issue 140 bogus?

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 18:50:30 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F1926A7@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
Cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
I guess I continue to find the notion of identifying a target as 'anon' a
little puzzling. 

I'm quite used to sending correspondence to an actor that does not identify
a particular recipient eg. "HM Govt. Inspector of Taxes". "HM Govt.
Inspector of Taxes" might indeed be denote the ultimate recipient a I might
be message (my tax return) that I'm sending. I've a feeling that it would be
trusting a little too much to luck to identify the target actor for my tax
return as 'anon' or even 'default'. Certainly, the envelope that I send my
tax return in has a distinctive brownish tinge that characterises
correspondence with the tax-office - and that may be one of the factors by
which the Royal Mail manage to get my message to the tax inspector and by
which the a tax inspector might determine that a tax return targetted at
'anon' is really intended for them.

I guess I'm more familiar with 'anon' being used as a means to hide the
identity of the sender.

Best regards

[Well I did'nt really think I'd get away with this, but it is intended to be
light hearted :-)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com]
> Sent: 05 October 2001 17:43
> To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
> Cc: Jacek Kopecky; Williams, Stuart; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue 140 bogus?
> 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.
> Henrik
> >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 
> >specifications 
> >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 Monday, 8 October 2001 14:01:17 UTC

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