axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Reitzel, Charlie" <CReit...@arrakisplanet.com>
Subject RE: CAPITALS considered harmful
Date Fri, 01 Jun 2001 23:47:42 GMT
Sorry to jump in late, but aren't both attributes necessary?

Direction: 	in/out
MessageOrigin: 	request/response


			Client	   Server
		============================
Request	| 	out		|	in	|
Response	|	in		|	out	|
		============================


-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Jellinghaus [mailto:robj@unrealities.com]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 2:02 AM
To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org; axis-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: CAPITALS considered harmful


OK THEN, message RECEIVED :-)
Cheers!
Rob

At 12:23 AM 6/1/2001 -0400, Glen Daniels wrote:
>Um, +1.  Couldn't have possibly said that better. :)
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "James M Snell" <jasnell@us.ibm.com>
>To: <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
>Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 12:13 AM
>Subject: Re: INPUT, OUTPUT considered harmful
>
>
>> Let me offer some INPUT to coincide with your OUTPUT.  The INPUT and 
>> OUTPUT may not actually be INPUT or OUTPUT, so sure, it makes sense that 
>> the INPUT and OUTPUT were not named INPUT or OUTPUT.  However, you're 
>> right, they are currently named INPUT and OUTPUT so if you want to change

>> that to REQUEST and RESPONSE, my RESPONSE to your REQUEST would be to go 
>> ahead and make the INPUT the REQUEST and the OUTPUT the RESPONSE. ;-)
>> 
>> - James Snell
>>      Software Engineer, Emerging Technologies, IBM
>>      James M Snell/Fresno/IBM - jasnell@us.ibm.com
>>     "God placed me on the earth to do a certain number of things. Right 
>> now, I am so far behind, I will never die." - Anon.
>> 
>> Please respond to axis-dev@xml.apache.org 
>> To:     axis-dev@xml.apache.org, axis-dev@xml.apache.org
>> cc: 
>> Subject:        Re: INPUT, OUTPUT considered harmful
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At 08:52 PM 5/31/2001 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> >Rob Jellinghaus wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The reason is that, depending on where you stand, it's possible to
have
>> >> different opinions about which direction is INPUT and which is OUTPUT.
>> >> Specifically, it seems to me that INPUT is always "towards the 
>> provider"
>> >> and OUTPUT is always "away from the provider".  But to Glen, INPUT is
>> >"from
>> >> the network" and OUTPUT is "towards the network".  Thus, in my world, 
>> the
>> >> client's INPUT chain gets routed (over the network) to the server's 
>> INPUT
>> >> chain, and server OUTPUT goes (over the net) to client OUTPUT.  But in
>> >> Glen's world, the client's OUTPUT chain gets routed (over net) to the
>> >> server's INPUT chain, and the server's OUTPUT gets routed (over net)
to
>> >the
>> >> client's INPUT.
>> >
>> >Remind me to never let you near my VCR.  :-P
>> 
>> Like I said, I understand Glen's (and your) viewpoint.
>> 
>> But it'd be helpful if you'd offer a comment on my actual proposal....
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Rob
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message