- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:58:20 -0800
- To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
- Cc: dorchard@jamcracker.com, frystyk@microsoft.com, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org, xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 07:46:29PM -0500, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote: > The possible objection to correlation IDs, which I believe has been > previously raised, is that > > 1) you need to figure out how transport bindings fit in. When I > send a request/response over http, I generally relay on HTTP itself > to correlate the response with the request. In that case, putting > ID's in the envelope itself is possible excess baggage. The proposed definition [1] identified 'implicit' (transport-binding) and 'explicit' (Module) correlation; if implicit correlation is used, it supplies correlation, meaning that no extra baggage is required. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Mar/0115.html Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)
Received on Friday, 23 March 2001 13:59:05 UTC