Re: comments on 30/3/2001 AM draft

EDT and regretfully, I won't be "out of here" until next month;-(

"Williams, Stuart" wrote:
> 
> Hi again Chris,
> 
> What time zone are you on! ;-> I'm out of here today at 5pm local.
> 
<snip/>
> > >
> > > This probaly is angels on a pinhead stuff, but I actually don't believe
> that
> > > you can do request/response ontop of pure one-way messaging without
> > > introducing (possibly standardised) 'application' specific syntactic
> > > elements into the message that explicitly enable such correlation - ie.
> you
> > > have to apply some semantics to the payload.
> >
> > Yes! This is exactly my thinking.
> 
> "...This..." the indirect reference... could be "yes... this is angels on
> pinhead stuff!" :-); could be "yes, I agree abstracting request/response
> from pure one-way doesn't does seem problematic without introducing further
> syntactic constructs"; could be "yes... further syntactic support is exactly
> the right way to be going..." ;
> 
> Don't mean to be picky, I have the sense that we might be agreeing loudly!

I believe that "this" refers to "yes, I agree abstracting
request/response
> from pure one-way doesn't does seem problematic without introducing further
> syntactic constructs"

Thus, I do believe we're on the same page. Because the messages cross
boundaries
of their sphere of direct influence, I also believe that there will of
necessity
be syntactic constructs that will be required to ensure that both
processors
are also on the same page as regards to messaging semantics that will 
influence the processing semantics.

<snip/>