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

RE: WS-Addr issues

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:05:56 -0800
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0B83558F@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@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>

I 100% believe in having open discussions about utility of something in
a spec.  I also 100% believe in the charter of the WG and particularly
the schedule and basis of deliverables.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:00 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: Jim Webber; Marc Hadley; Francisco Curbera; public-ws-
> addressing@w3.org; Savas Parastatidis;
public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WS-Addr issues
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Mark.
> 
> >
> > 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 20:06:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:59 GMT