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

Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR

From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:31:15 +0100
Message-ID: <43536F63.1040502@arjuna.com>
To: "Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>
CC: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, John Kemp <john.kemp@nokia.com>, Mark Nottingham <markn@bea.com>, WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Conor P. Cahill wrote:

>On a technical basis, I haven't heard anyone say that this isn't
>a resonable use case.
I think it is a reasonable use case and I suspect others do to. I just 
don't believe it is necessary to cope with it within WS-A by requiring 
changes to the specification.

> > Your fear that there will be a variety of implementations may be
> > groundless - if you choose one and describe it now, then others can
> > follow your lead, and all will be well.
>So you're telling me that CA and other implementors will commit to
>adopt one that I choose to describe now?   I'm guessing not.  I'm
>guessing that there will be many toolkits that either a) don't
>support this functionality at all because it isn't in the spec,
>or b) choose to do it in a different non-interoperable way.
> >
> > "Not having this capability makes it very hard/inefficient to support a
> > real world use of the spec."
> >
> > Not true - you have described multiple ways in which you might
> > implement a solution, and they appear both simple and efficient
> > (perhaps not as aesthetically pleasing). If there were truly no
> > way in which the problem might be addressed, other than changing
> > the spec, then I would be more sympathetic.
>A) My comment was more related to trying to follow the spec as
>written since that is all that out-of-the-box toolkits will
>be able to do).  The spec currently requires that the physical
>address be carried in a single wsa:Address element.  So if I
>wanted to follow the spec and I had multiple addresses I would
>have to have multiple EPRs (othewise I risk that clients
>built off the spec will not recognize the alternative addresses).
And apart from the "inefficiencies" that you may find in your specific 
environment, this is fine and well within scope. And it's interoperable too.

>B) Given that a spec has an xs:any in the EPR, I could put the
>kitchen sink in there, so there's pretty much no problem that
>would be impossible to resolve.  That doesn't mean that there
>aren't good reasons to have defined elements (which is why,
>even though there is an xs:any, the spec does define Address,
>ReferenceParameters, and Metadata).

Mark Little
Chief Architect
Arjuna Technologies Ltd
Received on Monday, 17 October 2005 09:32:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:11 UTC