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

RE: WS-A Issue 28 - Multiple ports needed in an EPR

From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:48:24 -0500 (EST)
To: "Vinoski, Stephen" <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>
cc: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Bergersen, Rebecca" <Rebecca.Bergersen@iona.com>, "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0411051744100.21308-100000@smtp.datapower.com>

> Where I come from, endpoints can be accessed
> over any number of transports and protocols. Why limit an EPR to
> describing only a single path to an endpoint? There is much middleware
> prior art in exsitence that proves that such a limit is completely
> unnecessary.

Do all the choices have to be enumerated in every *instance* of a message?
Does it often happen that the middleware layer tries a variety of
transports, choosing which ones dynamically on a per-message basis?

In my (limited) experience, deciding which of many transports/paths
is done at the sender-side, at message initiation time.  If it fails,
the middleware lets the sender know, and the sender then says "okay, try
this one."  Thnis would argue for multiple paths in the server
description, and not in each message instance.  Are there many
counter-examples?  Enough to justify the complexity?
	/r$

-- 
Rich Salz                  Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology       http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway  http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview      http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 22:48:27 GMT

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