W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2007

Re: Duplicate @binding, @address on endpoint

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:54:51 -0500
To: Ramkumar Menon <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>
cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <202BCD15EA2EDC5EC00B280F@xerom.local>


--On February 8, 2007 9:38:40 AM -0800 Ramkumar Menon 
<ramkumar.menon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess I am misinterpreting the meaning and purpose of Assertions.

Oh, I don't think that I'd go so far.  I *would* say, however, that the 
most useful assertions are those associated with requirements (MUST, MUST 
NOT, REQUIRED per RFC 2119).  I think that recommendations (SHOULD, SHOULD 
NOT, RECOMMENDED) ought (SHOULD!) be applied mostly to those things which 
may have an impact on interoperation, without certainly causing problems.

For the case in point, multiple definitions of what amounts to the same 
endpoint under different names is something that seems fairly pointless, 
but I don't see a problem which is caused by doing so, for either the 
service or the service's consumers.  Consequently, I don't think we should 
offer a warning (I propose, instead, that we all cluster together, point, 
and snigger, then run away when the service looks at us, but I'm feeling 
rather teenaged today, I think).

Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2007 18:55:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:03 UTC