[Standards-JIG] Routing Slip Pattern and JEP-0033
JHildebrand at jabber.com
Tue Jun 15 16:54:46 UTC 2004
I'd prefer that it be built on top. Although there is a lot of
specification in -33 about multicasting, the intent was that it could be
used for many different types of addressing type problems; multicasting was
the only one that seemed to need that much detail.
Let me know if you need more address types.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nolan Eakins [mailto:sneakin at semanticgap.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 1:07 AM
> To: standards-jig at jabber.org
> Subject: [Standards-JIG] Routing Slip Pattern and JEP-0033
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> I was reading "Enterprise Integration Patterns" by Gregor
> Hohpe, Bobby Woolf, et al. last night about the routing slip
> pattern. The problem that the pattern solves is "How do we
> route a message cosecutively through a series of processing
> steps when the sequence of steps is not known at design time
> and may vary for each message?".
> I was thinking about writing a JEP to specify that pattern for XMPP.
> I searched through the JEPs, and came across JEP-0033:
> Extended Stanza Addressing. The schema for JEP-0033 seems
> suitable for the pattern, but it seems like it is only geared
> towards multicasting. I just don't know if it would be better
> to specify it on top of JEP-0033, revise that JEP to address
> the pattern, or to start from a blank slate.
> I would appreciate any input or suggestions. It would be nice
> to see a standard way of sending a stanza to entity B, then
> to C, and back to A with all the information stored in the stanza.
> - ----
> sneakin |at| semanticgap.com
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards