- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:44:03 -0400
- To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
- Cc: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org'" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 09:32:51AM -0700, Ugo Corda wrote: > >It's a new message when it progresses any further, since the transfer > contract with the sender has been fulfilled. > > But is it possible to objectively identify this transfer contract? Sure, it's between the initial sender and the specified ultimate recipient. > In the > case of the pub/sub node, the sender's contract might be fulfilled by its > interaction with the pub/sub node (the pub/sub node is the ultimate > receiver). Right. > Or I could see the ultimate delivery of the message to the > subscribers as part of the sender's contract (the pub/sub node is just an > intermediary). "ultimate" is a deceptive word in the gateway case. I believe it refers to the the ultimate recipient as specified by the initial sender. This is consistent with SOAP 1.2's use of the word, AFAICT. It also relates to issue #2; http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/issues/wsa-issues.html#x2 and to an even more profound issue about whether a SOAP envelope is necessarily a message. But I won't raise that one. 8-) > How is this going to be determined? Is it just something in > the eye of the beholder? > > >Hmm, perhaps the SOAP 1.2 spec could be clearer. > > I completely agree with that. I just submitted the following to xmlp-comments; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Sep/0081 MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 14:43:38 UTC