Re: INT: Re: Intermediary Discussion

Are you suggesting that there should be a divorce between the nature
of the transport binding (in HTTP's case, request/response) and the
XP message exchange pattern?


On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 03:14:24PM -0500, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:
> Mark Nottingham writes:
> 
> >> However, the design shouldn't address this in the 'core'
> >> intermediary definition - it's too dependent on the 
> >> transport binding and influenced by the application.
> 
> Many applications will want to approach XP in a binding-independent 
> manner.  I think it is therefore important to have a clean set of rules 
> for the proper use and implications of headers/intermediaries, independent 
> of the binding.  Indeed, the role of the binding should be to provide 
> implementation of those semantics.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 

-- 
Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)

Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 16:23:47 UTC