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

RE: WS-Addr issues

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:53:14 -0800
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, 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
Message-ID: <20041103145315070.00000002360@amalhotr-pc>

 
> What does "lightweight function" mean?  
> Do you mean an HTTP GET request?
> A new "WS-Addressing GetMetadata" operation?

Yes, something like that, except usable by anyone not just WS-Addressing.

All the best, Ashok

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 2:47 PM
To: Ashok Malhotra; Jim Webber; Vinoski, Stephen; Doug Davis
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues


What does "lightweight function" mean?  Do you mean an HTTP GET request?
A new "WS-Addressing GetMetadata" operation?  WS-A would either have to reference an external function or create it's own.  

I'm pretty sure that the WSA charter doesn't include defining or referencing new operations.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 2:39 PM
> To: Jim Webber; Vinoski, Stephen; Doug Davis
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues
> 
> 
> My only concern is that WS-Metadata Exchange is a bit heavyweight.
> How about a lightweight function that took the URI from the EPR as 
> argument.
> 
> All the best, Ashok
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> 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 22:54:33 GMT

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