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

Scope of MEP (was: Re: Summary of open issues)

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:28:05 -0400
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFDF0E8AD6.676B02E8-ON852571E1.00752B09-852571E1.0075EDE2@lotus.com>

First of all, thank you David.  This sorting and clarification is very 
helpful. 

David Hull writes:

* Rewriting of destinations [1], corrected for loss of formatting in [2], 
discussed in [3], [4].  This is independent of multicast. For example, 
re-writing can occur with XMPP chat and (IIUC) email to a single address.

I'm unconvinced that the discussion of this is in practice independent of 
our multicast decision.  The text in question is from your note [1]:

---
Here's the text before:

    The scope of a one-way MEP is limited to transmission of
    (nearly)identical messages from one sending node to zero or more
    receiving SOAP node(s); typically, in the case of multiple
    receivers, the messages differ only in their destinations.

and after:

    The scope of a one-way MEP is limited to transmission of identical
    messages from one sending node to zero or more receiving SOAP node(s).
---

Both of those involve a lot of text about multiple messages that is 
motivated only by multicast.  If we go unicast, why discuss rewriting at 
all?  We don't for request/response.  Without multicast, I think we can 
simply say:

"The SOAP one-way MEP defines a pattern for the transmission of a single 
SOAP message from a sending SOAP node to a receiving SOAP node."

Why do we need more than that?  I am unconvinced that the substantive 
discussion of this issue doesn't depend tremendously on the multicast 
decision.  Most of the subtleties relate to multiple messages, multiple 
receivers and multicast. 

While I suppose one can quibble with my proposal above, I think it's very 
much in the spirit of our existing MEPs.  I don't see any more need to 
discuss rewriting for a unicast one-way than we need to for 
request/response.

So, I propose that this one be put on the "depends on multicast" pile.

Noah

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Aug/0048.html

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2006 21:28:25 GMT

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