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

Re: WSA From

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 16:12:18 -0500
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, Mark Little <mark.little@jboss.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org, Paul Fremantle <pzfreo@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <OFDB6C159E.FC9FB033-ON85257110.007437D3-85257110.00744AB0@us.ibm.com>
Ah, but other WS-* specs are placing wsa:ReplyTo in the message with its 
own semantics - not
that different from wsa:From, IMO.
-Doug




Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> 
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
02/09/2006 04:08 PM

To
Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
cc
Mark Little <mark.little@jboss.com>, Paul Fremantle <pzfreo@gmail.com>, 
public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject
Re: WSA From







ReplyTo, FaultTo and To have more concrete semantics; they actually 
have use cases baked into the WS-Addressing spec family (i.e., they 
all have to accept a certain type of message; the reply, a fault, and 
the original message, respectively). From just floats out there...


On 2006/02/09, at 12:23 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:

> Mark,
>
> Isn't that a general problem that exists, not just with wsa:From 
> but with wsa:ReplyTo, wsa:FaultTo, and wsa:To as well?
>
> -Anish
> --
>
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Speaking just as me...
>> It sounds like there are a lot of potential use cases for From.
>> What's less than clear is whether they're compatible; i.e., if WS- 
>> Foo  says wsa:From should contain a URI that corresponds to the 
>> MAC  address of your ethernet controller, WS-Bar says wsa:From 
>> should  contain a urn:uuid for your service (as we're already 
>> seeing from our  friends from the North, apparently), and WS-Baz 
>> says it should be  your IP address, how do you use these 
>> specifications in a  "composable" fashion?
>> Of course, From could changed to allow more than one URI, but 
>> then  how do you pick which one is the appropriate one? E.g., if I 
>> see  three http:// URIs in there, which one is MY From?
>> Smashing a bunch of different use cases into one vague semantic 
>> bucket isn't interoperable; it's asking for trouble. I see no 
>> reason  why these different cases can't specify different headers 
>> to contain  the information they need; yes, WS-Addressing is one 
>> boat that they  could hop onto on the way to standards paradise, 
>> but there are others.
>> Cheers,
>> On 2006/02/08, at 4:11 AM, Mark Little wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I don't see what it adds in removing it, but I can see what it 
>>> removes by removing it.
>>>
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul Fremantle wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to write in support of wsa:From.
>>>>
>>>> 1) A lot of mediation (SLA provision, security checks, etc) is 
>>>> based on who/where the message came from. From is useful for that.
>>>> 2) WSA makes WS-* much more "peer-to-peer". But knowing where a 
>>>> message comes from is a key part of that.
>>>>
>>>> For example we in Apache Synapse are allowing users to do 
>>>> custom  routing based on wsa:From.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Paul Fremantle
>>>> VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>>>>
>>>> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
>>>> paul@wso2.com <mailto:paul@wso2.com>
>>>>
>>>> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com <http:// 
>>>> www.wso2.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> -- 
>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 21:10:51 GMT

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