- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:43:05 -0700
- To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Cc: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@idoox.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sure, but the main piece here seems to be that an actor by some means knows that it can take on the role of the anonymous actor meaning that it deals with all parts of the message targeted at the anonymous actor. The difference in opinion seems to be that I would prefer to be formal about saying *what* it means to act in the role of the anonymous actor, rather than *how* that can be accomplished. Whether a message is forwarded or not seems to be directed at how rather than what. Henrik >Sure, but from a SOAP architecture point of view I would say: >you've got >one node there, and you've decided to do a distributed >implementation of >its responsibilities. That's fine. From a SOAP architecture point of >view, I think you have one opaque node. The machines you've wired >together collectively have the responsibility to meet the >specifications >of a SOAP ultimate receiver, and not to (in SOAP terms) >further forward >the message. Of course, nothing can prevent anyone from >creating new SOAP >messages which happen to pull data out of the original, >distribute data >extracted from the message etc.
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 12:45:03 UTC