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: Fri, 11 May 2007 10:32:48 -0400
Message-ID: <46447E90.7070606@tibco.com>
To: tom@coastin.com
CC: WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Tom Rutt wrote:
> see inline
>
> David Hull wrote:
>> 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 do not understand your scenario.  How can there there two policy
> expressions for the same server that are not the same?
I thought I gave three examples below?
>
> Tom
>> 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 Friday, 11 May 2007 14:33:10 GMT

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