- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:41:18 +0200
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- CC: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
What I think we are loosing with role="relay" is the ability to give meaningful/useful names to roles, such as, for example, "cacheManager". At the extreme, why not limit the value of the "role" attribute to either "next", "relay" and "ultimateReceiver"? Isn't the header itself (QName) sufficient for targetting? The "relayIfNotProcessed" option preserves the status quo better, IMO: headers can continue to be targetted via meaningful role names, with the added option of describing relaying semantics. Jean-Jacques. Jacek Kopecky wrote: > > >3) targeting the first understanding node > > Role="relay" > > Header block does not define relaying of that block > > It is necessary that the understanding node plays the special > role, and as I believe this would either lead to virtually all > nodes in any system playing this role or to possible conflicts > if two different headers wanted to use the relaying semantics > on two different sets of nodes along the message path.
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 05:41:13 UTC