- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:43:31 -0500
- To: "Don Box" <dbox@microsoft.com>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF24C6307B.9B1CA24B-ON85256CCA.000B5A77-85256CCA.000EF85E@us.ibm.com>
Don Box wrote on 02/10/2003 12:11:35 PM: <snip/> > > For what it's worth, the team I work on (we build the SOAP stack for our > company's operating system) has done a fair amount of navel > contemplation on this one. Our primary conclusion was that because SOAP > has no notion of message identity, intermediaries have a great deal of > freedom. That stated, here are some guidelines to think about: > > 1) Intermediaries SHOULD NOT contradict the intention of the original > sender and the ultimate receiver. When these two conflict, the ultimate > receiver's intention wins. Intention for what? This guideline seems to me to have a very RPC-style bias. In a pub/sub environment, neither the intent of the message publisher nor that of the message's subscriber(s) is necessarily known to any other than itself. In fact, the publisher may not be aware of the existance of the subscriber(s). How is an intermediary to "know", or even guess at the intent of the ultimate recipient? Can the intent of the original sender be "known" to be anything more than that it intends the message to be delivered to the ultimate recipient? > > 2) Intermediaries SHOULD NOT change the "action" of the message. If you > are going this far, consider becoming an ultimate receiver. What is the "action" of the message? <snip/> Cheers, Christopher Ferris Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com phone: +1 508 234 3624
Received on Monday, 10 February 2003 21:44:07 UTC