- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:38:49 -0800
- To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Cc: <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>The text you suggest doesn't seem to prevent a node playing >the role of >the anonymous actor from acting as an intermediary and relaying the >message. Well, it is an attempt of indicating *what* it means to act in the role of the default/anonymous actor rather than *how* to do it. The reason for this is that *who* is the ultimate recipient depends on from what side one is looking. In the scenario that I brought up some time ago about a front-end server and a back-end server like this: sender --> front-end --> back-end the *sender* believes that front-end it the ultimate destination. While this is true, the front-end has off-loaded the actual processing to the back-end. All three parties are SOAP nodes, it is just that the way the front-end has decided to process the message is to forward the message to the back-end server. In short, this model implicitly supports both intermediaries as well as gateways. I am concerned that if we don't allow this then we will have to define a SOAP node as an abstract entity that can contain multiple nested SOAP nodes which in my mind is much more complicated. Henrik
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 17:39:40 UTC