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

Re: Reference Parameters - using them

From: Pete Hendry <peter.hendry@capeclear.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:54:53 +1300
Message-ID: <434A2C5D.4010706@capeclear.com>
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
CC: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, "Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>, Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>



David Hull wrote:

>+1, and thanks for putting it much better than I would have.
>
>Conor P. Cahill wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Well, I think there needs to be a standard way to update/replace
>>the EPR that the client used to invoke the service.  However, in
>>the case of WSN, this isn't what's happening.  The subscription
>>response is saying something along the lines of "Ok, if you want
>>to communicate further with respect to *this* subscription, you
>>need to use this new EPR".
>>
>>That is different than saying "From now on, when you communicate
>>with me, you should use this new EPR".
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>I also think it would be good to standardize a method for the
>>recipient of a message to send back a response that indicates
>>that the sender should alter the logical EPR used to invoke
>>the service (change the endpoint, change the reference parameters,
>>etc.).
>>
>>    
>>

I thought I'd mention that the original thrust of my misgivings was the 
lack of ability for the server to pass back session information as 
reference parameters for subsequent client calls (the more useful 
direction in my opinion). The fact that the endpoint address could also 
be changed wasn't really something I thought of originally but is a nice 
side-effect.

One thing I was not aiming for was the concept of "from now on when you 
contact me" from the server but rather that the server/service would 
pass back the EPR in each response. For the former, the client must 
maintain state over multiple calls to the same service whereas I was 
just looking for a way to pass an EPR in the response to one request to 
be used in the next request by that client (not *all subsequent 
requests*). I think the scope of these approaches is different and what 
I am asking be consdered for inclusion is the simpler of the two approaches.

Pete
Received on Monday, 10 October 2005 08:55:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:09 GMT