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 15:00:14 -0800
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0B782BB8@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.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>

I agree that there should be a getmetadata operation that should be
usable by anyone not just ws-addressing.  That safely removes it from
the scope of ws-addressing without us having to talk about charter and
timelines :-)

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 2:53 PM
> To: David Orchard; 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?
> 
> 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 23:00:23 GMT

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