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

Re: WS-Addr issues

From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:00:17 +0000
Message-Id: <1D1FBA4D-2F09-11D9-84E9-00039399DACE@arjuna.com>
Cc: "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>

On 4 Nov 2004, at 22:44, 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.

Come on Dave, that's unfair. If you don't want to have open discussions 
about the utility of something in a specification then don't take it to 
a standards body. If the real reason behind taking WS-Addr to W3C was 
to get it rubber stamped as is, then I'd like to know that now.


> 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
>> Paco:
>>> 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.
>> Jim
>> --
>> http://jim.webber.name
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 09:06:42 UTC

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