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

Re: Constraints for multicast

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:36:38 -0700
Message-ID: <44F5CCA6.6040202@oracle.com>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
CC: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> David Hull writes:
>> "The proposal to allow multicast suggests that the API might need to
>> allow multiple addresses."  This is certainly not the intent of the 
>> proposed text.  To take an example, if I send email to {dmh@tibco.
>> com, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com}, that would be two instances of the
>> MEP.  If I send email to {xml-dist-app@w3.org}, that would be one 
>> instance, just as if I sent to {dmh@tibco.com}.  In other words, 
>> there is exactly one ImmediateDestination per MEP instance, just as 
>> the table says.
> When I send an email to a local distribution list (e.g. to: xml-interest 
> or some such) it's not uncommon for my mailer to pop up a warning in the 
> spirit of the following, one I would never see in sending to an 
> individual:
>         Warning: email addresses BobSmith, MaryJones, TommySlim not found, 
> continue sending to the other 53 users on this list?

Isn't this a binding specific error?
One could get a simliar error when sending an email to an address which 
is not a mailing list (without the question about 'continue sending'). 
Since we are really talking about fire-and-forget, I don't think these 
errors or warnings have a relevance at the MEP-level.

I do share Noah's concern about feature-creep and finishing up our 
one-way MEP work. I would prefer that our one-way MEP allow folks to use 
it for multicast (our MEP spec should not prevent it), but we shouldn't 
go into modeling it explicitly.


Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 17:39:14 UTC

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