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 10:32:26 +0100
Message-ID: <43536FAA.6090009@arjuna.com>
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
CC: John Kemp <john.kemp@nokia.com>, "Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>, "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, Mark Nottingham <markn@bea.com>, WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

+1

Martin Gudgin wrote:

>To me, it's about figuring out whether people can implement the spec 'as
>written'. Part of getting the spec to CR in the first place is ensuring
>it meets the requirements specified in usage scenarios etc. Few specs do
>everything everyone wants them to do. Sometimes features are left out
>for a variety of reasons ( same with shipping any 'product' really ). I
>believe this particular 'reasonable usage' was discussed by the WG and,
>essentially, didn't make the 80/20 cut. And I think the discussion
>occurred before Last Call, let alone CR.
>
>It's easy to cut features when moving forward from CR. It's very hard (
>impossible? ) to add features without incurring signficant extra process
>( i.e. going back to Last Call ).
>
>To me, before ( or during ) Last Call was the right time to ask for this
>feature to be added. Not during CR. And in some cases, people ask for
>features to be added, and the WG still declines to add them... That's
>just part of the way standards sausage gets made...
>
>Gudge
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: John Kemp [mailto:john.kemp@nokia.com] 
>>Sent: 16 October 2005 19:33
>>To: Martin Gudgin
>>Cc: Conor P. Cahill; Rogers, Tony; David Orchard; ext Mark 
>>Little; Mark Nottingham; WS-Addressing
>>Subject: Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR
>>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>ext Martin Gudgin wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I thought the CR phase was about figuring out whether the 
>>>      
>>>
>>spec could be
>>    
>>
>>>implemented 'as written'...
>>>      
>>>
>>Isn't it also about figuring out whether the spec. is 
>>interoperable for
>>reasonable usage? I've heard a reasonable usage expressed that isn't
>>supported interoperably by WS-A.
>>
>>- - JohnK
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Gudge 
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
>>>>[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
>>>>Conor P. Cahill
>>>>Sent: 16 October 2005 18:39
>>>>To: Rogers, Tony
>>>>Cc: David Orchard; John Kemp; ext Mark Little; Mark 
>>>>Nottingham; WS-Addressing
>>>>Subject: RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Rogers, Tony wrote on 10/16/2005, 9:02 PM:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>So I would prefer that those who have this newly 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>discovered need can
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>choose to solve it in one of the other ways that you 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>have outlined,
>>    
>>
>>>>>rather than hold back a standard that is in CR phase 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>already - yes.
>>    
>>
>>>>>Making the change that you propose would drag the spec 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>back to LC again,
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>and delay it for everyone.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>That's what the CR process is about.  If one can't raise issues
>>>>and get them resolved, then there doesn't need to be a CR phase
>>>>at all.
>>>>
>>>>On a technical basis, I haven't heard anyone say that this isn't
>>>>a resonable use case.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>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).
>>>>
>>>>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).
>>>>
>>>>Conor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
>>Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>>iD8DBQFDUw1BmNJiOOM57NMRAtthAJwJzvs/eQtyMSodYniL8mmqXc0AagCdFRKV
>>agwwkP3fOHPnCTiyeU2lCIs=
>>=e6VC
>>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>

-- 
Mark Little
Chief Architect
Arjuna Technologies Ltd
www.arjuna.com
Received on Monday, 17 October 2005 09:32:23 GMT

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