W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2006

RE: WSA From

From: John Kemp <john.1.kemp@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:09:39 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <32157864.1139486981049.JavaMail.root@dapmg001>
To: tom@coastin.com, pzfreo@gmail.com
Cc: conor.p.cahill@intel.com, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, mark.little@jboss.com, ConCahill@aol.com

I guess I don't understand what the wsa:From EPR is then. What is the recipient supposed to do with this EPR (as opposed to ReplyTo or other WSA-defined EPRs)? What are these SLA properties really about in other words? If you have some EPR for which these SLAs are required, doesn't it make sense to define the semantics for EPR similarly to the way semantics are explicit for ReplyTo et al? As Conor noted, there are no defined semantics for wsa:From, and I guess I also don't see why this couldn't be simply a URI (extensible with anyAttribute).



Cheers,
-JohnK

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of ext Paul Fremantle
> Received: Thu Feb 09 12:00:15 EET 2006
> To: tom@coastin.com
> Cc: Conor P. Cahill, Mark Little, Cahill, Conor P, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WSA From
> 
> Tom
> 
> +1. I think its more useful as an EPR. For example, I can imagine putting
> some SLA related info in the From extensibility points.
> 
> 
> Paul
> 
> On 2/8/06, Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Conor P. Cahill wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I would prefer that we keep the syntax for this "will hardly ever be
> > used" feature to be retained as in the CR (namely an EPR).
> >
> > Making the syntax "simpler" would take away some of the "hardly ever
> > used" uses people might make of wsa:from.
> >
> > Tom Rutt
> >
> > >>If it's optional, why not have it as a full-blown EPR anyway?
> > >>To be honest, I'd also be happy with something rather than
> > >>nothing, but I'd be interested in knowing reasons for URI
> > >>rather than EPR.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >EPRs are generally used when I intend to dereference them to]
> > >communicate with another party.   At this point there's no
> > >processing rules that I would use to make use of expanded
> > >fields in an EPR.
> > >
> > >Of course, <From> could have xs:anyAttribute and an
> > >xs:any sub-element definition so that in your particular
> > >environment anything could be added.  Just that the basic
> > >model from From is identifiying the other party -- which
> > >seems to be what I've heard here.
> > >
> > >Conor
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Tom Rutt        email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
> > Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Paul Fremantle
> VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
> 
> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
> paul@wso2.com
> 
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 20:59:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:11 GMT