W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > August 2006

Re: Updated soap12-part3

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:47:43 -0400
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-id: <44E09B1F.2030205@tibco.com>
This looks pretty good.  The one thing that jumps out at me is that the
table doesn't distinguish sender properties from receiver properties. 
Specifically (as I understand it):

    * The OutboundMessage only matters to the sender.
    * The InboundMessage only matters to receivers
    * Absent intermediaries, at least, ImmediateDestination may be
      redundant for a receiver (or may be quite important?).
    * Absent intermediaries, at least, ImmediateSender may be redundant
      for the sender, and may not be available to the receiver in some
      bindings (e.g., decoupled pub-sub).  But maybe that's why we have
    * Personally, I'm not clear on how we're modeling intermediaries
      (e.g., is the ImmediateDestination the ultimate receiver or the
      first intermediary, or does it depend?  Put another way, does the
      MEP extend end-to-end or one hop?  If it's end-to-end, each
      intermediary will have its own copy of /all/ the properties). 
      Maybe we've covered this already and I just haven't swapped it
      back in.

Obviously, we'll have to come to some sort of resolution on multicast. 
It may well be that Noah and I have equally powerful ways of expressing
the same constraints, in which case we can probably avoid a steel cage
match.  Otherwise, I'll point out that Noah can't hit me because I wear

David Orchard wrote:
> Is available at http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3
> I believe this draft deals with all outstanding issues, specifically
> those from Noah and DavidH.
> AFAIK, this is ready to move to WD.
> Cheers,
> Dave
Received on Monday, 14 August 2006 15:49:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:30 UTC