W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > April 2002

Re: D-AG0019 [RE: D-AG0007.1- defining reliable and stable WS ]

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 17:40:21 -0500
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020403224021.GL26149@jibboom.w3.org>
Hi Suresh.

* Damodaran, Suresh <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com> [2002-04-03 16:27-0600]
> In response to the 410 like generic behavior has two aspects.
> 	1. create a response signal such as 410
> 	2. create a protocol that will point to the "where it has gone" if
> it is known to the responding entity.
> 
> I think you are suggesting only (1) above. Which I consider a very useful
> enabler for reliability (may even be thought of as a performance enhancer
> from an implementation perspective).
> OTOH (2)is useful, but likely debatable (may be a "judgment" issue).
> Personally, I think even 2 could be a core reliability primitive for WS
> access.

HTTP gives you (1) and (2) for free, and even more: removed resources,
temporarily and permanently moved resources, etc. I think that all
are desirable, and I think that it is where the goal comes from.

The question is how that will be supported by other protocols, e.g. if
my service is identified by the <mailto:myservice@mydomain.example>.
This is why I think that we should recommend such practices, when
applicable (in HTTP's case, it definitely is).

Regards,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 17:40:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:57 GMT