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

Re: How omniscient is "omniscient"?

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:11:23 -0500
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF643B158C.0D597380-ON85257237.00007EAB-85257237.00010B30@lotus.com>

I think if you only look at the SOAP senders and receivers that's to a 
significant degree peephole.  If you talk about where the message is at 
each stage, for example whether it can live for a day in some durable 
queue that's not formally a SOAP node, that's omniscient.  If you talk 
about the fact that the message actually makes 3 non-SOAP hops and that 
the message is (take your choice of) end-to-end or hop-by-hop encrypted on 
these hops using transport-specific security mechanisms, that's 
omniscient. 

I'm a bit worried that we seem to be taking these discussions into way 
more detail than is merited.  There were a ton of questions roughly 
equivalent to these which, as Marc Hadley eloquently said on our call this 
week, we talked about at length during the SOAP 1.2 design discussions. We 
took them to a place that got consensus for releasing a Recommendation. 
So, there are lots of them that reasonable people might want to discuss 
more.  Nonetheless, I don't think we are chartered in this period, and I 
certainly didn't personally sign up in this period, to work on most of 
those.  In this period, my understanding is that we are fixing bugs, and 
we are to deliver a one-way MEP.  I take it as implicit that the one-way 
MEP will be in the spirit of the existing req/resp mep in its use of SOAP 
mechanisms, etc.  As I said on the call, I think we can come very close by 
making a one way that's similar to the request part of request/response. I 
don't think we need to or should spend a lot of time on these broader 
questions of what's an MEP, what's omniscience, etc.  If the answers were 
good enough to get us a useful request/response MEP, my intuition is that 
they're similarly good enough to ship a one-way. 

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
11/30/2006 04:00 PM
 
        To:     "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        How omniscient is "omniscient"?



There has been some use lately of the terms "peep-hole" and
"omniscient", referring to views of the SOAP activity in a MEP
instance.  I don't know what either of those terms means here.  To see
whether a one-way message exchange has happened, we need to look at the
sender and all receivers /and nothing else/ (like so many other things,
this is independent of the supposedly complicating matter of how many
receivers there are. If you like, substitute "the receiver").

If all receivers receive a message identical to the one sent, then we
have normal operation of the one-way MEP.  If not, we have abnormal
operation, which MAY produce faults.

I'm not sure if this view is a "peep-hole" view or an "omniscient"
view.  Whatever it is, it appears to work.
Received on Friday, 1 December 2006 00:11:32 GMT

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