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

Re: WS-Addr issues

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:50:16 -0800
Message-ID: <418ACE48.1020409@oracle.com>
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
CC: Jim Webber <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>, Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org, Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>

David Orchard wrote:

> With:
> - Jim wanting to get rid of ref props/params and Action (and by
> extension I'm wondering if messageid and relatesTo should be removed
> IHO), 
> - Marc wanting to add lifecycle to EPRs and make To Optional,
> - Anish wanting to make Service Qname required for EPRs, Address
> optional,
> Action a child of To:, 
> - Glen wanting ref props/params as child of To:,
> This feels to me like some people want to start from scratch.  I don't
> think I signed up for a WS-Addressing 2.0 that will take N years.  

As opposed to rubber-stamping of current WS-Addressing spec with ed. 
changes ;-)


> Dave 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
>>request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim Webber
>>Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 1:47 PM
>>To: Francisco Curbera; Marc Hadley
>>Cc: Mark Little; public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-
>>request@w3.org; Savas Parastatidis
>>Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues
>>>Action is not part of the EPR; I guess you mean make it an
>>>optional message header. Still, I guess your point is like
>>>the one about recognizing that the <To> information may be
>>>carried by the transport: you do agree it must be there but
>>>you argue it may be found in many different places (body,
>>>SOAPAction, etc...). I would still disagree, however: this
>>>just makes everything much more complicated than is really needed.
>>On the contrary it makes good sense to have addressing information
> like
>>"to" in an addressing spec. It makes less sense to have "intent" or
>>"dispatch" information in an addressing spec, and (controversy ahead)
>>very little sense whatsoever to have "context" information in an
>>addressing spec.
>>So - in addition to seeing off wsa:action I would also like to see
>>refprops/refparams removed. Certainly people will want to populate the
>>header space with particular header blocks, but bodging this through
> an
>>addressing mechanism seems a poor factoring.
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 00:52:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:07 UTC