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

RE: WS-Addr issues

From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 22:14:22 -0500
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Cc: mark.little@arjuna.com, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF57C9D0DB.F7D0F853-ON85256F45.001182DD-85256F45.0011CBAE@us.ibm.com>





Paul,

Why would someone need to shovel "foo" there? According to the current
spec, you can either define your own value and attach it to the WSDL using
the wsa:action attribute, or (provided you claim to support WS-Addressing)
a value is derived for you based on the WSDL definition of the
operation/message. No need for using "foo" anywhere.

Paco



                                                                                                                                               
                      <paul.downey@bt.com>                                                                                                     
                      Sent by:                        To:       <mark.little@arjuna.com>                                                       
                      public-ws-addressing-req        cc:       <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>                                                  
                      uest@w3.org                     Subject:  RE: WS-Addr issues                                                             
                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                               
                      11/05/2004 12:40 PM                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                               




Mark

> So Paul, you'd be happy to see it as an optional part of the spec?

i'm open to hear any arguments against making it optional, but am inclined
to think making such fields mandatory meaningless given some folks will
end up having to shove "foo" values when they don't want to use it at all.

However, i'm concerned that arguing to removing it altogether will
only impede our progress.

Paul
Received on Sunday, 7 November 2004 03:40:16 GMT

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