RE: comments on 30/3/2001 AM draft

Hi Chris,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> Sent: 03 April 2001 16:30
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: 'xml-dist-app@w3.org'
> Subject: 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 
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
rat's shouldn't reword stuff part way through the "doesn't" shouldn't be
there. I think you read it as intended ie.

"yes, I agree abstracting request/response from pure one-way does seem
problematic without introducing further syntactic constructs";

but I just wanted make that clear for anyone observing.

> > 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.

I think that you are correct in that there will be circumstances where
syntactic constructs are necessary to achieve the desired effect. I believe
that in time the necessary constructs will be defined as an XMLP Module
possibly leveraging from work done within ebXML - I do need to review the
0.98 version of the TR&P spec... but it's notholiday reading ;-)

> <snip/>

I look forward to further conversation.

Best regards

Stuart

Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2001 11:48:10 UTC