RE: Gateways

Boy, this is sure a heck of a big improvement in my view.  Now I actually
think I understand what you mean by "gateway".

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 4:58 AM
To: Mark Baker
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Gateways



Mark Baker wrote:
>>I think yours doesn't carry as clearly the notion that a gateway
>>terminates a message. The following sentence was certainly 
>>enlightening to me: "Unlike a proxy, a[n HTTP] gateway receives 
>>requests as if it were the origin server for the requested resource".
> 
> Ok.  Do you want to propose an edit that would make that clearer?

How about?

<revised>
Gateway: a node that terminates a message on an inbound interface 
with the intent of presenting it through an outbound interface as 
a new message. Unlike a proxy, a gateway receives messages as if 
it were the final receiver for the message. Due to possible 
mismatches between the inbound and outbound interfaces, a message 
may have some or all of its meaning lost during the conversion 
process. For example, an HTTP PUT has no equivalent in SMTP.
Note: a gateway may or may not be a SOAP node; however a gateway 
is never a SOAP intermediary, since gateways terminate messages 
and SOAP intermediaries relay them instead. Being a gateway is 
typically a permanent role, whilst being a SOAP intermediary is 
message specific.
</revised>

<original>
Gateway; a node that terminates a message on an inbound interface 
with the intent of presenting it through an outbound interface as 
a new message.  Due to possible mismatches between the inbound 
and outbound interfaces, a message may have some or all of its 
meaning lost during the conversion process.  Note; gateways may 
or may not be SOAP nodes, and gateways that are SOAP nodes are 
not SOAP intermediaries.
</original>

Jean-Jacques.

Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 16:09:58 UTC