W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org > April 2005

Fwd: Last call issue with section 3.0: why does this spec mandate a dispatching model?

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:31:16 -0700
Message-Id: <f6cc983f91cb73910b241526b78d4e50@bea.com>
To: "<public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org> <public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org>" <public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org>

Resending due to archive problems.

Begin forwarded message:

> Resent-From: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
> From: "Tim Ewald" <tim@mindreef.com>
> Date: April 18, 2005 11:31:25 AM PDT
> To: <public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org>
> Subject: Last call issue with section 3.0: why does this spec mandate 
> a dispatching model?
> Reply-To: <tim@mindreef.com>
> Organization: MindReef
> X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/
>
>
> I want to raise an issue with section 3.0, [1], which says, in part:
>
> <quote>
> The dispatching of incoming messages is based on two message 
> properties: the
> mandatory "destination" and "action" fields indicate the target 
> processing
> location and the verb or intent of the message respectively.
> </quote>
>
> In the WS-I BP WG, we argued strongly that we shouldn't be saying 
> anything
> about dispatching because it is a service implementation detail. So I 
> wonder
> why WS-Addressing says this. If I choose to dispatch on request 
> element in
> SOAP body or prefix used for the SOAP envelope, what do you care? Is 
> it the
> intent of WSA to "standardize" implementation model?
>
> I'd prefer to see this paragraph dropped.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim-
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-core-20050331/#msgaddrprops
>
> _______________________
> Tim Ewald
> http://www.mindreef.com
>
>
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Monday, 25 April 2005 19:31:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:38 GMT