- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:10:10 -0800
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau \(E-mail\)" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "John Ibbotson \(E-mail\)" <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>, "Krishna Sankar \(E-mail\)" <ksankar@cisco.com>, "Lynne Thompson \(E-mail\)" <Lynne.Thompson@unisys.com>, "Marc Hadley \(E-mail\)" <marc.hadley@uk.sun.com>, "Mark Baker \(E-mail\)" <mark.baker@canada.sun.com>, "Martin Gudgin \(E-mail\)" <marting@develop.com>, "Nick Smilonich" <nick.smilonich@unisys.com>, "Oisin Hurley \(E-mail\)" <ohurley@iona.com>, "Scott Isaacson \(E-mail\)" <SISAACSON@novell.com>, "Yves Lafon \(E-mail\)" <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>1) Are chained operations enough for you? From our discussions >I think not. > >2) If you want a single operation, through intermediaries, >which I think you >do, do you have a problem with the notion of a distinct event >to pass the >message 'up' to the XP handlers (encapsulated as an Intermediary >Application) and a second distinct event to pass them down again? I see - that makes a lot of sense - the current arrows in [1] are two ways but if I understand you right you want them to be separated out to indicate the direction. I have tried to illustrate this in [1] and [2] although not given the "events" any names. Would that work? Henrik [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/02/01-xmlprotocol-model2.gif [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/02/xmlprotocol-model2.ppt
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 13:10:44 UTC