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

RE: WS-Addr issues

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:10:18 -0800
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0B782ACE@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Vinoski, Stephen" <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>, "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I think I'm +1.  The only niggling bit is on the "can be", that can mean
a couple different things:

A service provide that doesn't put the WSDL contract information in an
1) MUST provide support for something like WS-MEX
2) MAY provide support for something like WS-MEX.

I'm +1 on the 2nd option and a big -1 on the first.  We don't require
HEAD on http: URIs.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim Webber
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:52 PM
> To: Vinoski, Stephen; Doug Davis
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues
> Hey Steve,
> > While that's true, it doesn't help unless the contract
> > address is associated with the EPR such that having the EPR
> > can get you to the contract.
> Yes you're right - I'll be more explicit: I think it's OK to not have
> WSDL contract information embedded in an EPR  provided that the WSDL
> contract can be obtained using the EPR (for example as part of a
> WS-MetaDataExchange message exchange).
> Jim
> --
> http://jim.webber.name
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2004 22:11:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:59 GMT