W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Examples to Resolve Issue LC136

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 12:19:04 -0400
Message-ID: <464345F8.6000101@tibco.com>
To: tom@coastin.com
CC: WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Tom,

Before I dig into this in detail, I wanted to point out one thing, which
may or may not matter and is probably more a WS-P issue if it does.

You say: "I changed the examples to a server policy intersecting with a
client policy."

I'm not sure that this is a safe change.

I phrased the original question in terms of two sources of metadata. 
One knows something.  Another knows something else.  We want to combine
that knowledge and figure out what they both know together.  For
example, an abstract WSDL says something general and a concrete WSDL
provides more detail.  Or we know some things because they're common to
all servers that implement spec X and we know other things because
they're company policy around here.  Or there's a minimum service-level
agreement (e.g., you must at least support anon, or you must not support
anon and but you must at least support HTTP callbacks) and the server
provides more capabilities (it supports anon and non anon, or it
supports both HTTP and Jabber callbacks).

This seems more general than "the client wants this, the server provides
that", though if the WS-P intersection algorithm serves for both, great.

Tom Rutt wrote:
> This body part will be downloaded on demand.
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2007 16:19:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:19 GMT