- From: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:35:11 -0500
- To: Steve Vinoski <vinoski@iona.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
At 10:56 AM 2001-01-26, Steve Vinoski wrote: >I strongly agree with Stuart's direction here. Marc Shapiro wrote a >seminal paper regarding this "intermediary chaining" approach to >distributed computing a number of years ago. You can find it here: ><http://www-sor.inria.fr/publi/FLEX_rr2007.html>. > >One of the draft scenarios, DS6, talks specifically about encryption. Note >that in an intermediary chaining model, encryption is essentially just >another quality of service provided by the binding -- the chain of >intermediaries -- logically connecting the sender to the receiver. >Encryption, compression, transportation, marshaling, and even >receiver-side dispatching all act as intermediaries in the chain. This >model is extremely flexible and upgradable, and yet when implemented >correctly it works very efficiently in practice. DS810 [1] is about QoS. Maybe its a subtle distinction, but Steve mentions QoS "provided by the binding". I envision an XP Module (above the XP core) also involved with QoS, which may influence the selection or behavior of bindings (below the XP core). Also, I advocated separate DS's for with and without Intermediaries [2]. I was thinking here in terms of using the usage scenarios as test cases during development of an XP implementation. I would not want to test without Intermediaries and try to claim it would also work with Intermediaries (without testing it). [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jan/0100.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0235.html Paul
Received on Friday, 26 January 2001 11:41:41 UTC