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

Re: ISSUE: Inconsistency in number of properties

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:33:37 -0400
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFB0035DF6.2CB5B32F-ON852571E1.0076108A-852571E1.00766FBA@lotus.com>

I can see your point here, but if I were to fix this at all, I think I'd 
split the table into a "Sender Properties", which would have Immediate 
Destination and Outbound Message, and a "Reciever Properties" table which 
would have only InboundMessage and ImmediateSender.  The terms 
InboundMessage and OutboundMessage are already established for other MEPs, 
and I quite strongly want to keep things consistent when the concepts are 

This does remind me of a new issue I hadn't noticed.  This MEP as drafted 
seems to obligate the binding to convey the identity of the sender to the 
receiver.  It's not at all clear to me that all the protocols you'd want 
to use with one-way have such "caller id" function.  I think that 
populating the ImmediateSender property at the receiver should be made 
optional with a MAY, and an explanation that some bindings will and some 
bindings won't do this.

In any case, I agree with David's suggestion that these questions are 
largely orthogonal to the multicast question.

Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
09/01/2006 03:22 PM
        To:     "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        ISSUE: Inconsistency in number of properties

There are currently four properties: InboundMessage, OutboundMessage, 
ImmediateSender and ImmediateDestination.  The sender and receivers each 
have a private copy of ImmediateSender and ImmediateDestination, but 
OutboundMessage is only visible to senders and InboundMessage only to 

Since each node has its own copy of the properties, it would be more 
consistent to have a single Message property.  The distinction of inbound 
and outbound proved awkward in trying to write a binding [1] and in 
describing possible differences between sender and receiver views of the 
MEP [2].

Proposed change:
Delete the row in the property table for OutboundMessage
Rename InboundMessage to Message in the first row.
In the Property Description for Message, change
This property is populated if and only if the message is successfully 
This property is populated at a receiver if and only if the message is 
successfully received.

(By the way, we don't seem to say whether the ImmediateSender and 
ImmediateDestination properties are only populated on success).

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Aug/0035.html
[2] (not archived yet, probably 52)
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2006 21:33:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:30 UTC