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: Damodaran, Suresh <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 17:05:38 -0600
Message-ID: <40AC2C8FB855D411AE0200D0B7458B2B07C59425@scidalmsg01.csg.stercomm.com>
To: "'Hugo Haas'" <hugo@w3.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Hi Hugo,

I was struggling to say in my earlier message what you said so explicitly in
the last para:
"The question is how that will be supported by other protocols, e.g. if
my service is identified by the <mailto:myservice@mydomain.example>."

And you further say
"This is why I think that we should recommend such practices, when
applicable (in HTTP's case, it definitely is)."

I agree. I further think that "such practices" would actually be reliability
protocols/techniques that we would provide as part of the reliability
facet/aspect of the WS architecture.
I am a bit hesitant in making all such protocols REQUIRED for all WS
implementations, though. I think even WS implementation without any
significant reliability would also find clients (e.g., weather services?)
and thus have a right to exist. May be we need to insist on making all
implementations reliable to a certain degree. I don't know enough to say
either way at this point.

Regards,
-Suresh



-----Original Message-----
From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 4:40 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: D-AG0019 [RE: D-AG0007.1- defining reliable and stable WS ]


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 18:06:00 GMT

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