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

Re: i0001: EPRs as identifiers

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:54:12 -0500
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <20041128045412.GB12173@markbaker.ca>

On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 05:37:33AM -0800, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > Of course they *can*.  But the point of a motivating example 
> > is to show
> > that the proposed solution is *necessary* -- not that it is
> > *possible*.   If the problem could just as well be solved using other
> > approaches (such as Reference *Parameters* or merely URIs) 
> > then the need
> > for the proposed solution has not been demonstrated.
> 
> I don't believe I have ever claimed that endpoints with different
> porttypes/security requirements/etc. could not be distinguished by URI.
> Obviously they can. However, I will repeat that we think that, in SOAP
> based systems, being able to distinguish between such endpoints using
> SOAP headers is also useful. I am not trying to force people that wants
> to use URIs to distinguish between such services to use SOAP headers
> instead. I'm happy for them to use URIs. But I equally don't want to
> force someone who DOES want to distinguish between such endpoints using
> SOAP headers from doing so.

Gudge, from my POV the issue isn't URIs vs. SOAP headers, it's just URIs
vs. non-URI identifiers.  I haven't heard anybody argue that the
identifier - whatever it might be - won't be in a SOAP header.

So to re-ask David's very valid (IMO) question, what is the motivating
example for using non-URI identifiers?

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Sunday, 28 November 2004 04:51:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:00 GMT