RE: SOAP actor model

Hi Mark,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@akamai.com]
> Sent: 20 March 2001 16:32
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: 'frystyk@microsoft.com'; 'Mark Jones'; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SOAP actor model
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 01:43:35PM -0000, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> > 
> > So in principle I think I could answer your question in the 
> negative,
> > however, I find that the lack of guidance on how to select a next
> > destination along a path leaves me feeling that not enough has been
> > specified in SOAP (yet) make intermediaries and paths useful.
> 
> In the most common case (RPC over HTTP), routing is often controlled
> outside the message (client configuration for proxies, other
> mechanisms for surrogates), and often isn't on behalf of the client,
> but instead on behalf of the access provider and content provider,
> respectively. The same holds for SMTP relays.

Maybe I should have been really specific. I was referring to "XMLP
intermediaries", not intermediaries in the underlying protocol layers. I
think that without exception, none of the intermediaries that you cite here
are "XMLP intermediaries".

> It will be good and necessary to define a routing module which allows
> the message to say where it goes, but I think intermediaries are
> functional and useful without it.

Sure... email message routers, http proxies and caches, ip routers, mac
layer bridges... have all demostrated their utility and value over the
years. But none of these are XML protocol intermediaries.

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- 
> Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
> Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)

BR

Stuart

Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2001 11:42:55 UTC