- From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:06:22 +0200
- 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