- From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:12:08 -0700
- To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org'" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
It's also interesting to read Jacek Kopecky's comment in issue#2: "In some cases putting the target URI in the envelope may be undesirable (security considerations, for example) or even impossible (when the source does not know/care where exactly the message goes after reaching some intermediary)." It sounds like the second case that Jacek mentions is the pub/sub one. If that is true, then he is thinking of the pub/sub node as an intermediary. Ugo -----Original Message----- From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 12:01 PM To: 'Mark Baker' Cc: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org' Subject: RE: Intermediaries - various cases >> But is it possible to objectively identify this transfer contract? >Sure, it's between the initial sender and the specified ultimate >recipient. >"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; But issue #2 is exactly about the fact that SOAP 1.2 does not provide any explicit mechanism for specifying the ultimate recipient. (Of course I can always define a SOAP extension that provides that, but it does not seem to be part of the basic spec). Ugo
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 15:12:40 UTC