RE: Has the semantics for Modules changed?

Hi Jean-Jacques,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: 20 March 2001 13:47
> To: Williams Stuart
> Cc: frystyk@microsoft.com; 'Mark Nottingham'; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Has the semantics for Modules changed?
> 
> 
> "Williams, Stuart" wrote:
> 
> > I think that there may be value in being able to 'tag' blocks with
something
> > that identifies their originator, however, I don't think that "Fig
2.1@AM"
> > implies that.
> 
> Fig-2.1 shows examples of sub-conversations: b-c (block2), d-f (block3)
and d-g
> (block4).

I think I'd be wary of labelling these things conversations or
sub-conversations. To me that gives a sense of an extended dialog of some
kind involving multiple message exchanges.

I'm reasonably happy with thinking of blocks passing through handlers (at
applications) and being remove and/or replaced (possibly with a clone).

> Showing this on our introductory figure probably means
> sub-conversations are important. If they are important (and I do think
they
> are), then we probably ought to be supporting them in XMLP Core. 

I think the intent of the structures in fig-2.1 was to be more explicit
about the model of intermediaries, blocks and handlers. I don't deny that
'tagging' a block with some means of identifying its originator at some
granularity of module or application is useful. It just that I don't think
that such tagging is implied by the diagram (an certainly goes undiscussed
in the document).

> If we don't, then maybe they should not appear on fig-2.1.
> 
> Jean-Jacques.

Stuart

Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2001 09:26:13 UTC