[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: activity context & context poll
Krishna,
I also agree with limiting the context to the needs of a cohesion (BT) protocol. The super-context is a) outside our scope/powers and b) arguable. I like the SOAP approach (or the GIOP approach) where many unrelated contexts can travel, and it is a matter of cooperation between different pairs of actors as to how they are interpreted, delegated/retransmitted etc. To take a concrete case in point: what if the rules for delegation are different for security and transactions? I may want to stop propagation in one case, and allow it (or enforce it) in the other. Where I do strongly agree with your approach is that context information should be freely capable of being written by frameworks or application instances, as well as standardized services of the kind we're working on defining. So I guess I would only want to see a framework for placing and identifying contexts (perhaps with an IANA like scheme for allocating unique ids for well-known standard contexts), rather than an attempt to tie them all into a super-context. Now, a framework where links are defined (or not defined), and elements may or may not be present may amount to the same thing ... Alastair Sanjay Dalal wrote: <Mark> |
begin:vcard n:Green;Alastair tel;cell:+44 795 841 2107 tel;fax:+44 207 670 1785 tel;work:+44 207 670 1780 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.choreology.com org:Choreology Ltd version:2.1 email;internet:alastair.green@choreology.com title:Managing Director adr;quoted-printable:;;13 Austin Friars=0D=0A;London;;EC2N 2JX; fn:Alastair Green end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC