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

Re: Language for Reference Parameters

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 10:59:58 -0400
To: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Cc: humphrey@cs.virginia.edu, wasson@virginia.edu, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <58b91909152a5fc93c506438feb941bc@Sun.COM>

There's a good thread on this subject starting at [1] - opaqueness is  
fine in principle but breaks down in practice due to the way RefPs  
become SOAP headers. Also note that RefPs have an  
IsReferenceParameter="true" attribute added to their root element when  
added to a SOAP message so they are changed albeit in a minor way.

Marc.

[1]  
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Nov/ 
0281.html

On Apr 26, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Savas Parastatidis wrote:

>
> Dear all,
>
> This issue came up during some discussions with folks at the University
> of Virginia (Marty and Glenn cc'd) while discussing an implementation  
> of
> WS-Transfer and how EPRs were used...
>
> My understanding of the Ws-Addressing specification is that the
> [Reference Parameters] information element item is opaque and that its
> children should be included in messages as header information elements
> without change. The specification states:
>
> "Reference parameters are provided by the issuer of the endpoint
> reference and are assumed to be opaque to consuming applications."
>
> The "assumed" bit is the reason for this message. Should there be
> normative language here? Either SHOULD or MUST? Are the consumers of an
> EPR allowed to reason about the contents of the [reference parameters]?
>
> My apologies if the above has already been discussed and a decision
> already made.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Savas Parastatidis
> http://savas.parastatidis.name
>
>
>
>
>
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 9 May 2005 15:00:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:05 GMT