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

Re: Action item - Part 2: SOAP request-response, response, request-optional-response ...

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:02:18 -0500
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: mbaker@gmail.com, "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF52A7E7BF.3F00A14C-ON852570FB.0073885B-852570FB.0073AF28@lotus.com>

Mark Baker writes:

> But about your original (quoted by Rich) point, "Indeed, I'd say that
> the intermediary is responsible for ensuring that the 2nd hop binding
> can faithfully implment the MEP used by the first hop", that's not
> even the case for application protocols, as the job of some (proxy)
> intermediaries is precisely to mediate between differents "MEPs" (in
> the generic sense of the word). 

Good catch.  I think, though, that in such a case the purpose of the proxy 
is to faithfully implement the semantics of the MEP used on the first hop, 
using the MEP of the second, and that's what I meant.  The originating 
client presumably doesn't want to know that the proxy is there, in most 
cases.  Therefore, its MEP contract better be honored.  That's what I 
meant, but you're right that it can be achieved by mapping to other models 
beyond the first hop.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:03:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:21 GMT