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

Re: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)

From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 21:16:26 -0500
To: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Cc: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1F3E4E8E.3648207E-ON85256F45.0000341A-85256F45.000C7DC8@us.ibm.com>


Actually, the idea of making all things optional is essentially similar to
that of making the spec itself optional; if one is a bad approach so is the
other. In both cases you end up compromising our ability to interoperate.


                      Mark Little                                                                                                              
                      <mark.little@arjuna.com>        To:       "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>                                        
                      Sent by:                        cc:       "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,        
                      public-ws-addressing-req         <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>                      
                      uest@w3.org                     Subject:  Re: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)                               
                      11/06/2004 04:18 AM                                                                                                      

>> I'm OK with a particular service requiring the presence of an action.
>> I'm not OK with requiring every message to carry one even when the
>> service they are destined for doesn't use it. This is where
>> we ended up
>> in the XMLP WG and I think its a good compromise position.
> If a service doesn't require wsa:Action, then perhaps it shouldn't be
> usign WS-Addressing?

Not a very good approach to addressing issues in general though, is it?
"If you don't like what's there, then use something else?" How are we,
as an industry, expected to try to standardize on things if we can't
discuss them in an open and honest manner? If we follow your question
to its logical conclusion, then let's close this working group now so
we can all get on with other things.


Mark Little,
Chief Architect,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.

Received on Sunday, 7 November 2004 03:40:14 UTC

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