Re: "operation name" .. an alternate proposal

FWIW, I don't even think it's necessary to have the operation name in
the message.  All I request is that there's some bit(s) in the message
that can be mapped via public specification to the operation name.  For
example, I could "say" via the IETF and IANA, that all messages arriving
on TCP port 15555 are supposed to be stored onto disk.  There, the
operation might be called "store", yet isn't in the message, but the TCP
port is part of the extended envelope of the message, and therefore is
sufficient to identify the operation.

I think that's the minimally acceptable scenario.  IMO, receiving a
message and not knowing what's being asked of you, is simply not an
option and should be actively discouraged.


On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 04:21:34PM -0400, David Booth wrote:
> At 12:31 PM 7/8/2004 -0700, Prasad Yendluri wrote:
> >. . . My preference would be towards a mechanism that captures [the 
> >operation name] in the message itself . . . .
> I agree that this would be conceptually cleaner layering, having the 
> message body include all and only the information that is semantically 
> relevant to the application (since the operation name is clearly 
> semantically relevant if it is used to dispatch).  However, my perception 
> is that this isn't the direction the industry winds are blowing.

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.

  Seeking work on large scale application/data integration projects
  and/or the enabling infrastructure for same.

Received on Friday, 9 July 2004 00:43:23 UTC