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

Re: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction)

From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:06:22 +0200
Message-ID: <42A4828E.2030403@coastin.com>
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org

Perhaps index is the incorrect work,  but the foo 0 is different from 
foo 1 in my proposal.

This scheme allows more scalable implementations (e.g, get uri at 
bootup, use system time when message composed cast as unsigned long for 
the integer portion of the message Id.

If we did this change, the relibility specs might utilize ws addressing 
message Id when present in a message.

Tom Rutt

Rich Salz wrote:

>> A [message id] value comprises a globalID part, and an optional 
>> index, which together uniquely identify the message.
> So {foo}0 is different from {foo}1?
> If it's part of the identifier, why is it an index?
> I think this is confusing, and would like to see a stronger 
> justification for making *part* of the [message id] be non-opaque.
>     /r$

Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 17:08:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:09 UTC