W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > June 2003

Re: New PR issue: one or more ultimate receiver?

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: 13 Jun 2003 16:29:09 +0200
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: XMLP Public <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1055514549.1934.30.camel@localhost>


Systinet's implementations would not be affected in any way if we made
the change you suggest.

Personally, however, I prefer the current text. I view multicast as an
optimization of sending multiple messages as one up to a branching point
in the message path. This optimization is usable in environments where
it doesn't matter that the message is seen as one and not as many

I think the 'an ultimate receiver' was meant to indicate that the
message may not actually reach the node, not that there may be multiple
such nodes.

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect
                   Systinet Corporation

On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 10:37, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> The following issue has been raised (e.g. [1]) on ws-arch: is there one 
> and only one ultimate receiver, or can there be several ultimate 
> receivers for the same message?
> The issue is that multicast bindings, for example, may be prohibited if 
> there is only one single ultimate receiver.
> Currently, Part 1 specifies there can only be ONE ultimate receiver (THE 
> ultimate receiver). An earlier version of Part 1 used to allow multiple 
> receivers (AN ultimate receiver), as per the resolution to issue 103 [2].
> It appears that when the resolution to issue 103 was implemented, not 
> all occurences of "THE" were changes to "AN", and that an (unfortunate) 
> editorial sanity check later replaced all instances of "AN" to "THE", 
> instead of the contrary.
> We have two options at this stage:
> 1) Go with whatever is in Part 1 today, considering that we are too late 
> in the Recommendation process; or
> 2) Reimplement the resolution to 103 (i.e. s/THE/AN/).
> I have a preference for option 2) above and consider that this is an 
> editorial change only. However, I think we should first investigate 
> whether this change is likely to (severely) impact current 
> implementations. I don't think so, but at the same time I don't want to 
> take the risk of delaying publication.
> I apologize for raising this issue so late in the Recommendation process.
> Pls remove xmlp-comments of any follow-up discussions.
> Jean-Jacques.
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Jun/0118.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x103
Received on Friday, 13 June 2003 10:29:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:23 UTC