RE: [AMG] Thoughts about path and intermediaries

Hi Dick,

So is that a plea for simple single-hop messaging?

Regards

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Brooks [mailto:dick@8760.com]
> Sent: 09 February 2001 15:47
> To: Martin Gudgin; 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: RE: [AMG] Thoughts about path and intermediaries
> 
> 
> Gudg wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> This is virtually identical to the discussion occurring within ebXML
> regarding intermediaries.
> A point-to-point protocol can be used in a "iterative" fashion between
> multihop exchanges and this
> makes the protocol/state machine significantly simpler to 
> implement. The
> trade-off is the loss of "protocol"
> support for administrative and other functions that cross 
> intermediaries.
> However, as you indicated,
> some of this functionality can be supplied as an application level
> construct.
> 
> A good metaphor to help understand the relative complexities of the two
> approaches is to compare IP routing(packet switching) to SS7 routing
> (circuit based - used for call setup between telco switches).
> 
> 
> Dick Brooks
> Group 8760
> 110 12th Street North
> Birmingham, AL 35203
> dick@8760.com
> 205-250-8053
> Fax: 205-250-8057
> http://www.8760.com/
> 
> InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions

Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 12:44:04 UTC