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

RE: Now that the train has left the station ...

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:41:57 -0700
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E868A8F7@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
You wrote:

 

Put another way, I don't see how the non-defaulting-and-required-ness of
[action] makes it any more significant as a signal that WSA was
intended.

 

I don't think it is any more significant.  It's simply easier to look
for wsa:Action than search all of the headers for the wsa namespace.  If
you wish to argue our decision is arbitrary, I'll agree!  But I still
support it as the simplest way to define the behavior, and thus the most
likely to get interoperability.

 

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:13 PM
To: Mark Nottingham
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Re: Now that the train has left the station ...

 

Mark Nottingham wrote: 

My recollection was that this was covered, at least tangentally, at  the
F2F; to stretch your metaphor, someone wearing black might not be  a
student at that institution, but if they wear something that's  black
and has the crest of the university, they probably are.  Similarly,
while the presence of the Action *property* doesn't mean  much, the
header we define has a more restricted semantic; if you  don't want
people to infer that you have addressing engaged, you can  still
populate the property with another mechanism (e.g., a header  with a
different QName). 

Sure, but I tend to think that argument holds for any wsa: header.  Put
another way, I don't see how the non-defaulting-and-required-ness of
[action] makes it any more significant as a signal that WSA was
intended.




Cheers, 


On 11/10/2005, at 3:57 PM, David Hull wrote: 





... I think I finally put my finger on the other reason I don't like 
about keying "WSA is engaged" off of [action] instead of any wsa:
header. 

As I understand it, the reasoning is that, since [action] is required 
and non-defaulting (and, as it happens, the only such), its presence 
indicates that the intent was to to engage WSA.  But the  implication is

backwards.  Intending to engage WSA implies wsa:Action (as it  happens),

but not vice versa.  The students at the Aveda institute downstairs of 
our office are evidently required to wear all-black, but wearing 
all-black does not imply that one is studying cosmetology (one might 
instead be playing rugby for New Zealand, or one might just like
black). 

Be that as it may, I accept that the issue is settled. 






-- 
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist 
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems 

________________________________________________________________________
________ 
BEAWorld 2005: coming to a city near you.  Everything you need for SOA
and enterprise infrastructure success. 


Register now at http://www.bea.com/4beaworld 


London 11-12 Oct| Paris13-14 Oct| Prague18-19 Oct |Tokyo 25-26 Oct|
Beijing 7-8 Dec 

 
Received on Friday, 14 October 2005 20:42:59 GMT

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