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: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:19:42 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0601191519s70b7113ey71ba01446ac5fb6b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

On 1/19/06, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 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.

Great!  It sounds like we're in agreement then.


Received on Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:19:49 UTC

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