Re: Gateways

Is "interface" the widely accepted term here? I can't help but 
think you're talking about network interfaces; hence I don't get 
the notion we are converting from one protocol to another.

Re. "gateways that are SOAP nodes are not SOAP intermediaries", I 
am reading Henrik's answer[1] somewhat differently.

He says: "gateways are not SOAP intermediaries", meaning SOAP 
intermediaries do processing at a higher level: they understand 
and possibly process the message; gateways typically do not.

But he then adds: "One could imagine SOAP intermediaries being 
underlying protocol gateways", meaning a SOAP intermediary might 
not process the message at all but simply switch protocols.

I think this fits perfectly with the figure at [2] and my earlier 
note [3].

Jean-Jacques.

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Oct/0018.html
[2]  http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/14-am/xmlp-am.html#Fig2.2
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/0129.html

Mark Baker wrote:
> Gateway; a node that terminates a message on an inbound interface with
> the intent of presenting it through an outbound interface as a new
> message.  Due to possible mismatches between the inbound and outbound
> interfaces, a message may have some or all of its meaning lost during
> the conversion process.  Note; gateways may or may not be SOAP nodes,
> and gateways that are SOAP nodes are not SOAP intermediaries.