- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:02:18 -0500
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: mbaker@gmail.com, "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Mark Baker writes: > But about your original (quoted by Rich) point, "Indeed, I'd say that > the intermediary is responsible for ensuring that the 2nd hop binding > can faithfully implment the MEP used by the first hop", that's not > even the case for application protocols, as the job of some (proxy) > intermediaries is precisely to mediate between differents "MEPs" (in > the generic sense of the word). Good catch. I think, though, that in such a case the purpose of the proxy is to faithfully implement the semantics of the MEP used on the first hop, using the MEP of the second, and that's what I meant. The originating client presumably doesn't want to know that the proxy is there, in most cases. Therefore, its MEP contract better be honored. That's what I meant, but you're right that it can be achieved by mapping to other models beyond the first hop. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:03:01 UTC