- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:24:10 -0800
- To: "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Yves, I think what you are describing in this scenario is typically called a gateway or in some cases a reverse proxy (a term that I don't really like). You are right that it is an intermediary but it really is an intermediary at a higher level than a SOAP/XMLP intermediary. Intermediaries can live at all levels and in the scenario you describe, it is part of the "application". In a previous version of [1] which you can find at [2]. Node IV is an example of an application layer intermediary. Henrik [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xp-reqs-05.html#fig1 [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/02/01-xmlprotocol-model2.gif >But note that S did the "real" generation of the reply. >Of course S has some knowledge, and we can argue that it will >perform another query rather than just transporting the >received one, but still, the intermediary SCD is after S (and >so is W). So it really say "reply to this" to what we call an >intermediary rather than "go and get a reply to this" (which >is the current semantic of an intermediary). This, of course >leads to a more hop-by-hop model.
Received on Monday, 19 March 2001 14:24:45 UTC