RE: [AMG] Thoughts about path and intermediaries

As an outsider to this group, but as somebody with a deep interest in this
discussion, I would support the second option of removing the notion of
"message paths" from XP altogether.  As a tool developer implementing this
stuff, my job would be made much easier.

- James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Martin Gudgin
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 4:48 AM
> To: Williams, Stuart; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (E-mail); Jean-Jacques
> Moreau (E-mail); John Ibbotson (E-mail); Krishna Sankar 
> (E-mail); Lynne
> Thompson (E-mail); Marc Hadley (E-mail); Mark Baker (E-mail); Nick
> Smilonich; Oisin Hurley (E-mail); Scott Isaacson (E-mail); Yves Lafon
> (E-mail)
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: [AMG] Thoughts about path and intermediaries
> 
> 
> Having spent some time thinking about this Stuart and I have 
> come to the
> following conclusion;
> 
> If the XML Protocol Layer directly supports the notion of a 
> path then we can
> support processing intermediaries that sit between the sender and the
> ultimate recipient. We can also support the targeting of XML Protocol
> Modules at particular XML Protocol Handlers located at those 
> processing
> intermediaries.
> 
> Conversely if the XML Protocol Layer does NOT support the 
> notion of a path
> then it becomes inherently single-hop. In this latter case 
> path becomes an
> application level construct and not part of the core 
> definition of the XML
> Protocol. This would simplify the core definition of XML 
> Protocol while
> still allowing applications to layer intermediary processing 
> on top of XML
> Protocol.
> 
> Thoughts, comments, flames etc. to the usual address
> 
> Gudge and Stuart
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 11:56:03 UTC