- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:26:20 -0700
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
I think that's the point of contention. Cheers, On 24/08/2005, at 8:27 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > Marc's example described a single message path, so > I knew SH3 couldn't be a reverse proxy, since such a configuration > involves (at least) two messages, two message paths, two ultimate > recipients, in SOAP terms. -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2005 16:26:32 UTC