Re: Protocol Bindings

So you're saying a binding could be considered as a local intermediary? (or maybe
some bindings only?)

Jean-Jacques.

christopher ferris wrote:

> [...]
> Secondly, if I correctly understand Henrik's position a binding
> MAY actually transform the message by inserting headers which
> relate information that is not contained within the message,
> but is available to the software that effects the binding.
> e.g. the "binding" may actually perform as an actor in the SOAP
> sense. Conversely, a binding may consume header blocks that
> are targetted to it, thus effectively transforming the message.
> [...]

Received on Thursday, 12 July 2001 02:59:33 UTC