RE: [AMG]: Glossary terms: XP Processor, XP Sender and XP Receive r.

Hi Scott,

> To be even more clear in our layering, in the abtract model 
> we need to show which components handle which XP Message 
> elements.  For example, if we agree that the XP Processor is 
> "above the XP layer" (at the application layer. maps tp XP 
> Client in the abstract model) and XP Senders and Receivers 
> are "in the XP layer" (maps to XP-Layer-Entity in the 
> abstract model) then what are their relationships to the 
> other items in the Glossary in section 6 like XP Message, XP 
> Envelope, XP Header, XP Body, and XP Blocks.  Who handles what?
> 
> I propose:
> 
> 1) Since XP Processors are above the XP layer, they handle 
> either the entired XP Body or at least one XP Block in the XP Body.  
> 2) Since XP Senders and Recievers are within the XP layer 
> they handle the entire XP Envelopes and the entire XP Header 
> or at least one or more XP Blocks (possibly XP Faults) within 
> XP Header.

I working on revising the strawman with respect to the feedback that has
been raised so far, and have just hit upon this same issue as I've been
'tugging' it around a bit. Hopefully, I'll have something for the subgroup
to 'chew' on by the weekend, and will certainly appreciate feedback on how
this turns out in the next draft. 

There has also been some discussion of how useful the distinction between
header and bodies really is (thread starting at [1]). I think the
distinction can be really useful and is pretty much as you suggest... that
headers (and enveloping) are things that the XP layer 'deal' with while
bodies (which from the application point-of-view might be application
headers and application bodies - basically an application message or an  XP
payload or payloads) are handled by XP Processors - which seem's like
conventional wisdom.

Thanks,

Stuart

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jan/0110.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Isaacson [mailto:SISAACSON@novell.com]
> Sent: 01 February 2001 16:38
> To: mark.baker@canada.sun.com; ksankar@cisco.com; moreau@crf.canon.fr;
> marting@develop.com; skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com; ohurley@iona.com;
> frystyk@microsoft.com; john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com;
> Lynne.Thompson@unisys.com; nick.smilonich@unisys.com; ylafon@w3.org
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3c.org
> Subject: Re: [AMG]: Glossary terms: XP Processor, XP Sender and XP
> Receiver.
> 
> 
> Stuart,
> 
> > I think that the narrative of the glossary and Figure 4 present an
> > inconsistent view. I prefer the implied by Fig 4 and would like 
> > to see the narrative adjusted to be more consistent with Fig 4.
> 
> I agree with your preference.  I too like the implications of 
> Figure 4 more than the
> implications of the text and feel that the text should be 
> changed accordingly. This sovles the issues I brought up in 
> one of my first emails on the abstract model.
> 
> To be even more clear in our layering, in the abtract model 
> we need to show which components handle which XP Message 
> elements.  For example, if we agree that the XP Processor is 
> "above the XP layer" (at the application layer. maps tp XP 
> Client in the abstract model) and XP Senders and Receivers 
> are "in the XP layer" (maps to XP-Layer-Entity in the 
> abstract model) then what are their relationships to the 
> other items in the Glossary in section 6 like XP Message, XP 
> Envelope, XP Header, XP Body, and XP Blocks.  Who handles what?
> 
> I propose:
> 
> 1) Since XP Processors are above the XP layer, they handle 
> either the entired XP Body or at least one XP Block in the XP Body.  
> 2) Since XP Senders and Recievers are within the XP layer 
> they handle the entire XP Envelopes and the entire XP Header 
> or at least one or more XP Blocks (possibly XP Faults) within 
> XP Header.
> 
> 
> Scott
> Scott A. Isaacson
> 801.861.7366
> sisaacson@novell.com 
> 
> 
> >>> "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com> 02/01/01 04:14AM >>>
> Folks,
> 
> I'm trying to reconcile the terms, "XP Client" and "XP Layer 
> entity" that I
> used in the strawman [2], with terms and diagrams for "XP 
> Processor", "XP
> sender" and "XP receiver" from the requirements document [1].
> 
> I think that the narrative of the glossary and Figure 4 present an
> inconsistent view. I prefer the implied by Fig 4 and would 
> like to see the
> narrative adjusted to be more consistent with Fig 4.
> 
> Figure 4 from [1] suggests a match between "XP processor" and 
> "XP client"
> which feels comfortable to me. It makes the "XP Processor" an 
> 'application'
> entity that handles application processing of an XP message 
> once it has been
> received and forms application messages to be send. 
> 
> The "XP sender" and "XP receiver" of figure 4 are then the 
> entities that
> actually deal with the rules of the protocol and the transfer 
> of the message
> over the 'wire' through the use of underlying protocols. That 
> makes "XP
> sender" and "XP receiver" from [1] match with "XP layer 
> entity" from [2] and
> really specialise it to the role of sending or receiving an 
> XP message.
> 
> However, the text of the glosssary entries, suggests completely the
> converse:
> 
> <extract>
> XP processor 
> An XP Processor processes an XP message according to the formal set of
> conventions defined by the XML Protocol and generates an XP 
> fault if the
> conventions are not followed. Insufficient or wrong data 
> carried in an XP
> block can cause an XP processor to generate a fault (see also 
> XP receiver
> and XP sender) 
> 
> XP sender 
> An application that can generate an XP message and perform an 
> XP binding to
> a specific protocol for the purpose of transmitting the message. 
> 
> XP receiver 
> An application that can accept an incoming XP message 
> transmitted using some
> XP binding, extract the message from the XP binding and pass 
> the message to
> an XP processor. 
> </extract>
> 
> The text yields match between "XP layer entity" and "XP processor" and
> places "XP sender" and "XP receiver" as applications which 
> for me matches up
> with my notion of an "XP Client".
> 
> Thoughts, Comments?
> 
> Stuart
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xp-reqs-20001219/ 
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/01/15-abstract-model/ 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 1 February 2001 12:28:57 UTC