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

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

From: Tim Ewald <tim@mindreef.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 14:56:14 -0400
To: "'Nilo Mitra \(TX/EUS\)'" <nilo.mitra@ericsson.com>, <public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1DT2ZG-0005nE-N1@maggie.w3.org>
This resolution is acceptable to me.

Thanks,
Tim-


  _____  

From: Nilo Mitra (TX/EUS) [mailto:nilo.mitra@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 1:31 PM
To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org; tim@mindreef.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: Last call issue with section 3.0: why does this spec
mandate a dispatching model?


Tim:
The WG, during its F2F, decided NOT to accept your proposal (identified as
LC issue 54) to delete some text in section 3.0 related to dispatching. The
text, however, was revised. The revised accepted text is:

"The mandatory [destination] and [action] properties indicate the target
processing location and the verb or intent of the message respectively,
which can facilitate dispatch of incoming messages."

Please acknowledge on this list whether or not this resolution is acceptable
to you,

Thanks,
Nilo
(on behalf of the WS-A WG)

> Resent-From: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
<mailto:public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org?Subject=Re:%20Fwd:%20Last%20cal
l%20issue%20with%20section%203.0:%20why%20does%20this%20spec%20mandate%20a%2
0dispatching%20model%3F&In-Reply-To=%3Cf6cc983f91cb73910b241526b78d4e50@bea.
com%3E&References=%3Cf6cc983f91cb73910b241526b78d4e50@bea.com%3E> 
> From: "Tim Ewald" <tim@mindreef.com
<mailto:tim@mindreef.com?Subject=Re:%20Fwd:%20Last%20call%20issue%20with%20s
ection%203.0:%20why%20does%20this%20spec%20mandate%20a%20dispatching%20model
%3F&In-Reply-To=%3Cf6cc983f91cb73910b241526b78d4e50@bea.com%3E&References=%3
Cf6cc983f91cb73910b241526b78d4e50@bea.com%3E> >
> Date: April 18, 2005 11:31:25 AM PDT
> To: <public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
<mailto:public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org?Subject=Re:%20Fwd:%20Last%20cal
l%20issue%20with%20section%203.0:%20why%20does%20this%20spec%20mandate%20a%2
0dispatching%20model%3F&In-Reply-To=%3Cf6cc983f91cb73910b241526b78d4e50@bea.
com%3E&References=%3Cf6cc983f91cb73910b241526b78d4e50@bea.com%3E> >
> Subject: Last call issue with section 3.0: why does this spec mandate 
> a dispatching model?
> Reply-To: <tim@mindreef.com
<mailto:tim@mindreef.com?Subject=Re:%20Fwd:%20Last%20call%20issue%20with%20s
ection%203.0:%20why%20does%20this%20spec%20mandate%20a%20dispatching%20model
%3F&In-Reply-To=%3Cf6cc983f91cb73910b241526b78d4e50@bea.com%3E&References=%3
Cf6cc983f91cb73910b241526b78d4e50@bea.com%3E> >
> 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 <http://www.mindreef.com/> 
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 18:56:32 GMT

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