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 08:53:00 +0000
Message-Id: <18E98B3E-2F08-11D9-84E9-00039399DACE@arjuna.com>
Cc: "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>
To: "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>


I'm not so sure about To, but there is an argument about ReplyTo. But 
luckily it's optional. Now why is that? Probably because it isn't 
needed by every user ;-)


On 4 Nov 2004, at 21:47, Jim Webber wrote:

> 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 09:06:44 UTC

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