+1 I think making the WSDL contract mandatory in the EPR is too restrictive, but I didn't read "mandatory" in Steve's original email. Mark. ---- Mark Little, Chief Architect, Arjuna Technologies Ltd. www.arjuna.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk> To: "Vinoski, Stephen" <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>; "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com> Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 9:52 PM 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 Thursday, 4 November 2004 10:14:27 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:59 GMT