W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > January 2005

RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:14:00 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709DF40@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <distobj@acm.org>, <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>


i fail to see why using a single gateway URI such as 
mailto:soap@example.org for several services implies RPC. 
To my eye it most likely implies a Message Oriented Model,
an architectural POV important to my member company.


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Mark Baker
Sent: 25 January 2005 21:27
To: Francisco Curbera
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services


On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 02:28:53PM -0500, Francisco Curbera wrote:
> The text now states that two EPRs with the same URL and different ref.
> params. have the same metadata. This leaves out an important use case of
> Web service gateways/routers which is one of the most pervasive Web
> services products in the industry. In a gateway architecture we encounter
> situations where a single external address (http, smtp, message queue o
> whatever) front ends a variety of services deployed inside the enterprise.

Do you mean URIs like http://backend.userland.com/rpc?  Or are you
referring to a fan-out style service where, for example, some RSS can be
POSTed to a URI, and it gets disseminated to a bunch of subscribers to
that URI?

If the latter, ok, but then the services at the other end would have
the same WSDL and the same policies, so that should be ok, right?

If the former, then I accept that this is done, but so are a lot of
other things that one would call "bad practice".  Specifically, if the
message was really intended to be sent to somewhere else down the line,
then that's where it should be addressed.  If this isn't a gateway
scenario, and instead an intermediary scenario, then routing could be
used to route to the intended destination via the intermediary.  Am I
missing something?

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2005 15:13:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:08 UTC