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

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

From: Vinoski, Stephen <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 23:19:40 -0500
Message-ID: <13AC4E67178F4D4EA31BB1BA645303132DBD17@amereast-ems2.boston.amer.iona.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <rsalz@datapower.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Sanjiva is right. (I already answered this the previous time you asked it, Rich; see [1].)

--steve

[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Nov/0183.html>

-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 11:14 PM
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Re: WS-A Issue 28 - Multiple ports needed in an EPR



"Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com> writes:
> 
> Yeah, but does it have to go in the message?
> 
> Perhaps a ReplyTo needs all the EPR's, but it seems to me that the
> sender-side runtime does *not* need to enumerate all addresses in the
> message it's creating.  Does it?

No, not at all .. I think Steve is arguing that that needs to be
there in the EPR structure. Whether that gets serialized into
the message itself as the <To> EPR (logically speaking) is a
different question. I would agree with you that you don't need
those when sending an actual message to an actual endpoint -
where you have already selected one protocol etc..

Sanjiva.
Received on Sunday, 7 November 2004 04:19:49 GMT

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