RE: Words for the Triangles

Mark, 

Would you agree that there still is a discovery step done by a logically
separate party (i.e. not a servce and not a client)? May be not the
registry, but something anyways... I'm not talking about physical
implementation, but rather about the logical architectural components.
So if you were to draw that logical architecture would you include
Discovery Mechanism component then?

I agree, though, that it is definitely possible to implement discovery
without a registry.

-- Igor Sedukhin .. ([email protected])
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 12:36 PM
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#_Toc1265378
> 4

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