- From: Frank McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:17:30 -0800
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Some issues to consider in the MOM 1. Does correlation still belong? 2. Should we have message intermediaries? Pro: Allows us to explain router-style intermediaries Con: If a message has been modified in *any* way, is it still the same message 3. The SOAP notion of an envelope is essentially the outer wrapper of the message infoset. However, SOAP 1.2 seems essentially silent on the transport aspects of messages. I don't think we should be so silent; especially since we cannot explain routers without it. However, the natural place for this is in the envelope (after all, envelopes have addresses written on them!) 3a. In effect, is an address that is used by a transport mechanism part of the message or not? What about message oriented audit trails? (Where the message carries with it a record of its trajectory through the system.) 3b. The current definition of envelope is not really consistent with the SOAP view. However, it *does* capture the concept of a message's address. 4. The diagram that is in the text does not reflect the discussion that we had in Palo Alto. That includes delivery policies as well as intermediaries. Probably there is more, but this is a pretty good list already! Frank
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2003 01:17:34 UTC