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

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

From: Joseph Baysdon <jbaysdon@tibco.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:49:17 -0400
Message-ID: <3EEA1CAD.1080406@tibco.com>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
CC: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, XMLP Public <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Jacek Kopecky wrote:

>Jean-Jacques,
>
>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
>messages.
>
>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
>                   http://www.systinet.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>

We would prefer the second option.  We plan to support multicast, and it is important that it be treated as a peer with unicast (no assumption that each message has a single receiver only).

(Amy Lewis, thanks for the heads-up note.)
Received on Friday, 13 June 2003 14:52:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:14 GMT