- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 15:57:59 +0100
- To: "Williams Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: frystyk@microsoft.com, "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@akamai.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Stuart, "Williams, Stuart" wrote: > 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). [...] I may have been referring to an earlier version of the diagram, when arrows used to be bidirectional, and which made be believe the following exchange was possible, as part of a larger request: HandlerD(intermediary) --Block4--> HandlerG(receiver) HandlerD(intermediary) <--Block4'-- HandlerG(receiver) Tagging looks like an interesting candidate solution for implementing this kind of exchange; but I guess, strictly speaking, you are right: there is no implication in the diagram (or if there is one, it's probably the other way round). Jean-Jacques.
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2001 09:58:48 UTC