W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > December 2004

RE: Another way of thinking about EPRs

From: Srinivas, Davanum M <Davanum.Srinivas@ca.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:32:35 -0500
Message-ID: <87527035FDD42A428221FA578D4A9A5B0890821E@usilms24.ca.com>
To: "George Datuashvili" <George.Datuashvili@Siebel.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

George, 
Please see my later email about Grid/WSRF

Thanks,
dims 

-----Original Message-----
From: George Datuashvili [mailto:George.Datuashvili@Siebel.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 12:18 PM
To: Srinivas, Davanum M; Martin Gudgin; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: RE: Another way of thinking about EPRs

Even if there was no WS-Addressing, you can't write transparent
BPEL-based monitoring of "who" receivers are without knowing about
business process definitions. Proper monitoring would require parsing of
correlation set definitions from business process, and then filtering
soap messages based on correlation sets.

As long as you do that, WS-Addressing doesn't introduce any additional
ambiguity, as among other things, correlation sets would also contain
headers that correspond to reference properties that participate in the
selection of business process instance and its port.

Thanks
-gia

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Srinivas, 
> Davanum M
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 7:13 PM
> To: Martin Gudgin; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Another way of thinking about EPRs
> 
> 
> Martin, All,
> 
> Yes, I get it...Here's a variation of the argument I have been making 
> for i008 (not sure about i001). Section 2.4 of submission[1] talks 
> about comparing 2 EPR's. If I have to write a completely transparent 
> BPEL or WS-Choreography monitoring solution, I need to be able to look

> at the wire and be able to figure out who is talking to who and keep 
> track of interactions between entities in the system. *IF* from the 
> soap message on the wire I can figure out the "who"
> portion..then I am all set.
> According to 2.4, I can use the combination of [address] and 
> [reference properties] to figure out A is sending the message to B. 
> BUT if I don't have access to the EPR's themselves or list of all the 
> Qname's that are definitely reference properties, I cannot find out 
> the "who". IF there is some "annotation" (word used by Jonathan on 
> IRC) on the soap message on the wire then I can do this VERY easily.
> 
> So the basic question is - Is there consensus on whether we need some 
> "annotation"? (could be wrappers, could be attributes, could be 
> something else entirely).
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-ws-addressing-20040810/
> 
> Thanks,
> dims
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin 
> Gudgin
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 6:47 PM
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Another way of thinking about EPRs
> 
> 
> I've noticed that whenever we talk about issues i001 and i008, that 
> there is an implicit assumption that we start with an EPR and go from 
> that to the message. I think that in many cases, the reverse is 
> actually true, that is, people start with SOAP messages with headers 
> in and then decide how to communicate to a potential sender what those

> messages should look like ( WRT the headers ).
> 
> For example, I want to have people send me messages that look like the

> three below.
> 
> <soap:Envelope>
>  <soap:Header>
>    <wsa:To>http://example.org/weather</wsa:To>
>    <m:ServiceLevel>Gold</m:ServiceLevel>
>    <m:TxId>1234</m:TxId>
>  </soap:Header>
>  <soap:Body>
>  . . .
>  </soap:Body>
> </soap:Envelope>
> 
> <soap:Envelope>
>  <soap:Header>
>    <wsa:To>http://example.org/weather</wsa:To>
>    <m:ServiceLevel>Silver</m:ServiceLevel>
>    <m:TxId>1234</m:TxId>
>  </soap:Header>
>  <soap:Body>
>  . . .
>  </soap:Body>
> </soap:Envelope>
> 
> <soap:Envelope>
>  <soap:Header>
>    <wsa:To>http://example.org/weather</wsa:To>
>    <m:ServiceLevel>Gold</m:ServiceLevel>
>    <m:TxId>4567</m:TxId>
>  </soap:Header>
>  <soap:Body>
>  . . .
>  </soap:Body>
> </soap:Envelope>
> 
> How can I communicate to my users that I want the messages to look 
> like this? Ah, I know, I'll send them an EPR. Here are the three EPRs 
> for the messages above ( my seperation between Props/Params is 
> arbitrary ).
> 
> <wsa:EndpointReference>
>  <wsa:Address>http://example.org/weather</wsa:Address>
>  <wsa:ReferenceProperties>
>   <m:ServiceLevel>Gold</m:ServiceLevel>
>  </wsa:ReferenceProperties>
>  <wsa:ReferenceParameters>
>   <m:ServiceLevel>1234</m:ServiceLevel>
>  </wsa:ReferenceParameters>
> </wsa:EndpointReference>
> 
> <wsa:EndpointReference>
>  <wsa:Address>http://example.org/weather</wsa:Address>
>  <wsa:ReferenceProperties>
>   <m:ServiceLevel>Silver</m:ServiceLevel>
>  </wsa:ReferenceProperties>
>  <wsa:ReferenceParameters>
>   <m:ServiceLevel>1234</m:ServiceLevel>
>  </wsa:ReferenceParameters>
> </wsa:EndpointReference>
> 
> <wsa:EndpointReference>
>  <wsa:Address>http://example.org/weather</wsa:Address>
>  <wsa:ReferenceProperties>
>   <m:ServiceLevel>Gold</m:ServiceLevel>
>  </wsa:ReferenceProperties>
>  <wsa:ReferenceParameters>
>   <m:ServiceLevel>4567</m:ServiceLevel>
>  </wsa:ReferenceParameters>
> </wsa:EndpointReference>
> 
> Does this make any sense?
> 
> Gudge


------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
contains confidential and/or privileged information belonging to Siebel
Systems, Inc. or its customers or partners.  Any unauthorized review,
use, copying, disclosure or distribution of this message is strictly
prohibited.  If you are not an intended recipient of this message,
please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all soft and hard
copies of the message and any attachments.  Thank you for your
cooperation.
====================================================
Received on Friday, 10 December 2004 17:32:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:00 GMT