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

Re: WS-Addr issues

From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 10:02:02 -0000
Message-ID: <022701c4c257$0c36ae70$850a090a@exhp>
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>

+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