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

RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR

From: Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:50:45 +1000
Message-ID: <7997F38251504E43B38435DAF917887F58EA18@ausyms23.ca.com>
To: "Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: "John Kemp" <john.kemp@nokia.com>, "ext Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <markn@bea.com>, "WS-Addressing" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I strongly prefer DaveO's solution (put the extra addresses into an
extension) over the idea of making the address field unbounded.

There will be a great many implementations using a single address (most
of the use-cases I've encountered so far will use a single address), and
that is what WS-A has been defined to accommodate. Using DaveO's
suggestion, your requirement can also be accommodated.

I would be voting against changing the spec at this time.


Tony Rogers
tony.rogers@ca.com

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Conor P.
Cahill
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2005 9:31
To: David Orchard
Cc: John Kemp; ext Mark Little; Mark Nottingham; WS-Addressing
Subject: RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR




David Orchard wrote on 10/16/2005, 1:09 PM:

 >
 > WSA does allow for it.  Create a new QName like wsalt:address, define
> the semantics, and put it in EPR instances.  WSA just didn't want to
get  > into the business of defining the semantics of duping the
wsa:address  > for EPRs everywhere.

That is no different than carrying the other addresses in Metadat,
thus carrying equivalent data in two different locations.   That
doesn't make alot of sense to me and I think it will result in the same
information being carried in different locations by different profiles
as each profile makes up their own alternative location for the
equivalent data.

I don't understand what you mean by "duping the wsa:address for
EPRs everywhere."   We aren't talking about duping anything. We
are talking about carrying multiple physical endpoints in a single EPR
describing a single logical endpoint.

I think that it is very appropriate for an addressing specification to
deal with the fact that a logical endpoint *may* have multiple physical
endpoints.


Conor
Received on Sunday, 16 October 2005 23:50:55 GMT

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