Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 19:29:41 -0700
From: Rob Jellinghaus <robj@unrealities.com>
Subject: RE: CAPITALS considered harmful
In-reply-to: <B5C79DDBC655D311B6BD0008C7E64D76013C15A1@exchange.arrakisp
 lanet.com>
To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org,
 "'axis-dev@xml.apache.org'" <axis-dev@xml.apache.org>
Message-id: <3.0.1.32.20010601192941.010d1bd0@shell2.ba.best.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

We don't need both attributes when describing chain directionality.  Right
now we *are* using both attributes in different places, IMHO confusingly.
It seems my CAPITALS did the TRICK at persuading some other folks to AGREE :-)

Your diagram is accurate IMHO, though another email of mine points out that
it's not in fact how at least some of the client code is written.

I am going to go ahead with this renaming, probably in pieces over the next
week or so.

Cheers!
Rob


At 07:47 PM 6/1/2001 -0400, Reitzel, Charlie wrote:
>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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>
>>
>>
>
>