RE: Words for the Triangles

Mark,

If A and B are two partners in a B2B interaction, B could maintain a private
UDDI registry and A could be given access to it. So A's best way to access B
services' interfaces could be through B's UDDI.

I am not saying that it's the only way for A to communicate with B. I am
just pointing out that the concept of UDDI as a third party dropped into an
otherwise pure P2P scenario is not that clearly cut in all cases.

Ugo

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 9:36 AM
To: Ugo Corda
Cc: 'Hugo Haas'; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Words for the Triangles


Ugo,

Maybe so, but it still suggests the three-party model; A wants to
communicate with B, but is required to go to C in order to get the
necessary information to do so.

We know how to enable communication without a registry.  It's not
difficult.  Let's promote that.

Thanks.

MB

On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 08:57:42AM -0700, Ugo Corda wrote:
> 
> >I think that UDDI hints at a central registry solution, and putting it
> >in a sentence such as "the key to reaching this new horizon is a
> >common program-to-program communication model" definitely pushes in
> >this direction.
> 
> Version 3 of UDDI has moved away from the concept of a central registry.
> UDDI 3 supports multiregistry topologies (which is different than version
> 2's multinode topologies based on node replication). For more details, see
> UDDI 3 section 8, "Publishing Across Multiple Registries" [1].
> 
> Ugo
> 
> [1]
http://www.uddi.org/pubs/uddi-v3.00-published-20020719.htm#_Toc12653784

-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               [email protected]
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com