Re: issue 6432 - yet another proposal

hi,
   My understanding of the use of "opaque" wrt to URI's is that you  
are not supposed to infer anything from the structure of the URI, not  
that specific uri's don't have specific "meanings"/semantics as  
defined in specs.
   Otherwise it is totally meaningless to define a uri and give it  
semantics.
So this argument and asir's response don't make sense to me. You can  
certainly tell that the 2 uri's in question are different and you can  
certainly know what the semantics of using them are. So i don't see a  
problem.
    -jeff
On Apr 08, 2009, at 2:34 AM, Yves Lafon wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Gilbert Pilz wrote:
>
>> WS-Addressing 1.0 - Core defines two "special" URIs;
>> "http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous" and
>> "http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/none". Messages targeted to  
>> either
>> of these URIs are processed differently from messages targeted to
>> "normal" URIs such as "http://webserivce.bea.com/. . .".
>
> Well, they are different, but unless you know WS-Addressing, or  
> unless you resolve http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous  
> and find out the relationship between this URI and the WS-Addressing  
> spec.
> If you resolve http://webservice.bea.com/... you will probably have  
> information about the endpoint, or you may know it in advance from  
> another document. So both URIs are opaque, unless you know their  
> semantic.
>
>
> -- 
> Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
>
>        ~~Yves
>
>

--
Jeff Mischkinsky			          		jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware 				+1(650)506-1975
	and Web Services Standards           			500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
Oracle								Redwood Shores, CA 94065

Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 19:14:03 UTC