- From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:36:29 +0100
- 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.)
Mark.
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
(www.arjuna.com)
Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 17:36:33 UTC