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

Re: Updated soap12-part3

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:18:41 -0400
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFBD15BE64.ECEE3207-ON852571CA.006F5B44-852571CA.006F93A2@lotus.com>

David Hull writes:

> 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.

Well, I think we badly dropped the ball on this in the original Part 2, 
and I would have loved to see us do it more carefully.  Still, I don't 
think that the one way MEP, which is supposed to be a simple building 
block with limited WG time investment, is the umbrella under which to 
tackle intermediary-enabling MEPs.  Should we ever wish to invest in that, 
I think we should evaluate that as a separate item, make sure the 
membership is ready to commit the necessary resources and that 
implementors will actually do something with the results, and then do it 
for Request/Response first. So, I'd prefer to leave intermediaries in the 
same somewhat vague state for one-way that they are for req/resp.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 14 August 2006 20:19:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:23 GMT