- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:24:05 -0400
- To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 10:02:24AM -0700, Ugo Corda wrote: > >So an HTTP-to-SMTP gateway would be responsible for matching up HTTP > >methods and SMTP methods as close as it could, presumably allowing > >inbound HTTP POSTs to go out as SMTP DATA requests (with lots of header > >futzing). > > Yes, and taking that at the SOAP level, a SOAP node could receive SOAP > messages traveling over HTTP and forward them to another SOAP node over > SMTP. Is that still a gateway? If it terminates the message, yes, I'd say so. > Whatever it is called, it should be a SOAP > intermediary, right? Ideally, yes. But I agree with Henrik when he says that it isn't as defined the SOAP 1.2 spec. > Switching the underlying protocol has always been one > of the SOAP scenarios and, if I remember well, the SOAP nodes where that > occurs are SOAP intermediaries. SOAP intermediaries can switch between protocols, but not all SOAP nodes that are "protocol switchers" are SOAP intermediaries. Is that clear? 8-) MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2002 13:23:05 UTC