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 Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:03:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:28 UTC