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

Re: WS-Addr issues

From: Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:51:16 -0800
Message-Id: <587D2FE4-2F96-11D9-A4C3-000D93ADFB4C@oracle.com>
Cc: "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>
To: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>


On Nov 05, 2004, at 1:00 AM, Mark Little wrote:

>
>
> 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.

So now you know. :-(

     jeff
>
> 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
>>
>
>
>
--
Jeff Mischkinsky					jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Web Services Standards		+1(650)506-1975
Consulting Member Technical Staff	500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 4OP9
Oracle Corporation					Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Received on Saturday, 6 November 2004 04:08:29 GMT

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