RE: Issue 140 bogus?

+1

I'm sure that in real world applications, there will be
pre-defined arrangements at the application level that do this,
particularly when only 2 applications are talking point-to-point.
But when talking about networks of applications with
intermediaries, and unknown endpoints, I don't see any point
in trying to define the behavior of the anonymous actor.


-----Original Message-----
From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Williams, Stuart
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 1:51 PM
To: 'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'; Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
Cc: Jacek Kopecky; Williams, Stuart; xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: RE: Issue 140 bogus?


I guess I continue to find the notion of identifying a target as 'anon' a
little puzzling.

I'm quite used to sending correspondence to an actor that does not identify
a particular recipient eg. "HM Govt. Inspector of Taxes". "HM Govt.
Inspector of Taxes" might indeed be denote the ultimate recipient a I might
be message (my tax return) that I'm sending. I've a feeling that it would be
trusting a little too much to luck to identify the target actor for my tax
return as 'anon' or even 'default'. Certainly, the envelope that I send my
tax return in has a distinctive brownish tinge that characterises
correspondence with the tax-office - and that may be one of the factors by
which the Royal Mail manage to get my message to the tax inspector and by
which the a tax inspector might determine that a tax return targetted at
'anon' is really intended for them.

I guess I'm more familiar with 'anon' being used as a means to hide the
identity of the sender.

Best regards

Anon.
[Well I did'nt really think I'd get away with this, but it is intended to be
light hearted :-)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com]
> Sent: 05 October 2001 17:43
> To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
> Cc: Jacek Kopecky; Williams, Stuart; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue 140 bogus?
>
>
>
> 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 Tuesday, 9 October 2001 15:25:46 UTC