- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:05:28 +0200
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- CC: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Interesting you think the spec currently supports 1). My own reading is that it supports 2), i.e. there may be multiple nodes on the message path that play the exact same role, for example logging. Actually, if think I really prefer the "relayIfNotProcessed" solution. As I've said earlier, it's not always possible to determine whether a header needs forwarding based solely on the header itself. There has to be some other information, whether in the message or out-of-band. Currently, this extra information is in module specifications only, i.e. it has no real incarnation but ink on paper. I am in favour of making that information explicit. Jean-Jacques. Jacek Kopecky wrote: > 1) (status quo) the message path contains some nodes and some roles, and > the mapping from a role to a node is unambiguous. In other words, a role > name identifies at most one node (from the POV of the sender) and the > contract is between the sender and that node > > 2) (after proposed default flip) the message path contains some roles, > the contract is between the sender and the role (anyone playing the > role). > > I think Henrik assumes the first view but wants to make an exception for > a specific scenario. > > I think the specific scenario is very close to the second view so I > thought that view was being adopted here.
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2002 11:05:26 UTC