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

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

From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:36:29 +0100
Message-ID: <42A4899D.6070402@arjuna.com>
To: tom@coastin.com
CC: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org

Tom, I understand where you're coming from, but are we not in danger of 
widening the scope of WS-Addressing in this case, to the point where it 
may be argued that "we" need a basic (core) addressing spec, which says 
*where* things are, and then a message-interaction spec. that describes 
individual message exchanges, including items such as sequence ids, 
sliding window size etc? (To be honest, I think that argument could be 
made today as-is, but I'm worried that we might exhaserbate things.)


Tom Rutt wrote:

> 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$

Mark Little
Chief Architect
Arjuna Technologies Ltd
Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 17:36:33 UTC

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