Re: More on identity

On Oct 11, 2006, at 8:18 AM, Doug Davis wrote:
> First, and this relates to Marc's suggested use of the  
> wsa:RelatesTo header.  Implicit in his proposal is the notion that  
> all messages being sent to the RManonURI are related to some  
> previous message.  This would be akin to requiring all messages to  
> http://www.cnn.com to be related to some previous message - which  
> obviously isn't always true.

That comparison is broken. http://www.cnn.com/ can (at least for the  
sake of argument) accept unsolicited messages. The anon URI is  
different since messages sent to it have to be solicited in some way.

>  Let's look at a specific example:  take the case of a pub/sub  
> system, where I wish to receive notifications on Baseball, so I  
> subscribe specifying the appropriate info to get Baseball scores,  
> and I pass in an RManonURI in the notification EPR.  Under Marc's  
> proposal, I think, all notifications would have a wsa:RelatesTo  
> that pointed back to the subscribe request message.

I don't think I proposed that "all notifications" would have to be  
handled in that way. I merely proposed an alternate message flow that  
would accomplish the same goal that your initial message flow did  
without recourse to custom anon URIs.

I think its *possible* that you could apply the same approach to a  
generic publish/subscribe protocol but I don't think that is the  
problem we are trying to solve here and I certainly wasn't proposing  
a solution in that space. Other SOAP-based solutions (e.g. WS- 
Eventing) have been proposed in this space  and, IIRC, they don't  
require custom anon URIs.

Marc.

---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.